Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Category structure

Please review the proposed categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beta. At present they are sorted by type, topic, and place. In addition, through the existing VfD/TfD/CfD process, we sort currently deletions by namespace (partially) and by date. These are both useful structures. At one time they sufficiently subdivided deletion debates, but this is no longer the case. However, we certainly shouldn't do away with them. So perhaps an ideal categorization system would sort nominations in five ways:

  1. By namespace (Article, Template, Category, other): mostly already in place, non-contentious.
  2. By date: already in place within each system, presumably non-contentious.
  3. By type: certain kinds of content -- people, schools, websites, etc. -- turn up commonly enough in deletion debates to merit special categories. Most such types are already receiving special attention, in the form of efforts at establishing bodies of precedent (such as Wikipedia:Websites).
  4. By topic: The core of the categorized-deletion proposal, this would give editors with an interest in a specific area of coverage the opportunity to participate in relevant deletion discussions, without trudging through the wasteland of VfD. However, we need clear criteria for what does and doesn't merit a topical category.
  5. By place: Really a specialized form of "by topic." There are lots of regional Wikipedian communities and projects, and lots of interest in improving Wikipedia coverage of country/region X. Thus it makes sense to categorize nominations by place whenever possible. Personally, I would favor creating categories for any country or US state that ever has related content on VfD (which is to say, pretty much every country and US state).

How does this basic structure seem? Is it adequate? Does it go too far? -- Visviva 09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Could also have By Language (I've often seen "this seams to be Portuguese" or Spanish, etc... -Mariano 15:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • We could, but for the most part I don't think they would get enough traffic to be worthwhile. Actually, most of those items come to VfD from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation. It would certainly be nice if Pages needing translation was categorized by language... -- Visviva 05:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unified deletion

If we're going to categorize deletions, it makes sense to consider all different types of content for deletion, including categories and templates as well as articles. Doesn't it? What about images and other media? Could image deletions be categorized as well, or should they be kept separate as they are at present? And what about redirects? RfD is so small, maybe we should just leave it alone.

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to leave out images and redirects, while including templates and categories. Templates and categories, like articles, need to have some clear content, some assertion of encyclopedic merit, or they are candidates for speedy deletion. That doesn't seem to apply to images and redirects (which by their nature have no content). Thus, trying to categorize IfD and RfD is probably much more trouble than it's worth. Thoughts? -- Visviva 09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists and categories

Categorized deletion won't work unless there are well-maintained lists to go along with it. I gather than the closest thing to a dynamic list on Wikipedia is Special:Whatlinkshere, which unfortunately is pretty lame. What we really need (I think) are transcluded topical lists for each category, containing all present (and perhaps past) deletions in that category. Creating such lists is easy. How can we ensure that these lists are kept up to date? -- Visviva 09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now created a test list, although all but one item on it is already closed. See Wikipedia:Korea-related deletions. I would create a list about a more active topic, but in the present climate I'm afraid it would be deleted. At least this area is one where I am genuinely active and have already been maintaining a deletion list. Thus, I hope no one will accuse me of trying to make a disruptive point. -- Visviva 12:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

How do you prevent someone deliberately putting a VFD into an inappropriate category so that they can get the result they want by deliberately dis-including knowledgable editors. This is particularly an issue on controversial areas - e.g. Abuse of Christians by Islam being put into the Christianity section so that it is kept by editors interested in Christianity, rather than the Islam section. Or someone moving a VFD for Jesus as a buddhist into the Buddhism section to get it kept. Or someone putting Wikipedia:Admins banned from voting into the obscure games and geographical locations section to keep it as Admins are unlikely to be too concerned about that section. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You also have the converse problem of POV warriors patrolling their subject area, but more normal editors not paying so much attention to them. Both these issues need resolving. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Good points. At present there is only a single proposed "Religion and philosophy" category in Beta. However, if there were separate Islam and Christianity categories, obviously an article like "Abuse of Christians by Islam" would belong in both. Of course, even in good faith relevant categories will be left out by the nominator. Let's see -- I think we have three possible problems here, let's go through them:
1. Accidental or deliberate omission of deletions from categories in which they belong. This is inevitable to some extent.
Possible solutions: Have standard one-line templates (implemented using subst) so that people reading the debate can quickly see in what categories it has been placed, by who, and when. Anyone visiting a debate can place it in a category they consider appropriate, by adding the appropriate template as a "Comment" line. Have a category "Deletions needing sorting" (possibly identical with the main deletion category), which could be regularly patrolled by deletion nuts such as ourselves. (That would be the long-term purpose of this WikiProject, in fact.)
2. Deliberate misplacement of deletions in inappropriate cats, either as spam or in an effort to obscure debate. This is highly likely with problem contributors, of which we have quite a few.
Possible solutions: The solution to vandalistic placements is the same as the solution to any vandalism -- revert. In the event that this becomes too problematic (as when revert wars develop with multiple editors on both sides), just leaving the debate in inappropriate categories would not do very much harm. Putting a deletion in an obscure category, in an effort to hide it from debate, is unlikely to be successful. As long as we keep a central list (whether in the form of the present VfD daily log, or as a non-transcluded list), it should be easy to spot such problems. Since any user can add the deletion to a new category, the placement problem can be solved the instant it is noticed. (That's the Wiki way!)
3. POV warriors are always going to pay more attention to deletion than the rest of us, because it gives them exactly the kind of contentious debate they get off on.
Possible solutions: That's already a serious problem with the current VfD community (present company excluded). Average editors with an interest in topic X are much more likely to pay attention to a short topical list of deletions than they are to sift through the nearly-100 daily entries on the VfD log. That's why topical deletion lists are cropping up all over (even though they're a pain to maintain), and have even been included on the WikiProject template. I believe that sorted deletion would actually increase the percentage of good-faith voters on VfD. -- Visviva 11:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
"Have a category "Deletions needing sorting" (possibly identical with the main deletion category), which could be regularly patrolled by deletion nuts such as ourselves. (That would be the long-term purpose of this WikiProject, in fact.)"
I think with that you run the risk of instruction creep, in that this requires somebody to actively maintain and sort entries, thus making more work to go into processing a VfD nomination. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's a large amount of work. I've been sorting VfDs into a rather complicated schema for about 2 weeks now, and I find that I can generally sort all 100-plus daily entries in less than an hour (imperfectly, to be sure). That said, I think Radiant's suggestion below is probably best: let deletions be sorted at nomination into 5-10 basic categories, and leave any additional sorting up to interested editors. -- Visviva 16:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

I've now plowed through several hundred deletion debates and deletion-ready articles, as I have now finished the 4th day of the 10-day survey recorded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beta. Between the bad articles and the bad-faith nominations, I'm about ready for a chat with Ralph on the porcelain telephone.  :-(

However, I have gotten some more perspective on the problems of deletion sorting. Here are some issues I'm thinking over, regarding the draft structure at /Blank:

  • Sorting fiction/webfiction/Tv/film is difficult, especially since deletion-ready articles often don't provide enough information to distinguish them. An umbrella category would help. (Maybe "Popular culture", rather than the current "Arts"?).
  • Trying to sort neologisms from other words is a waste of time.
  • Discussions on CfD and TfD (and for that matter RfD and IfD) cannot be included at present. They are not placed on subpages, so we can't transclude or categorize them. Pity. I've stopped surveying them for now.
  • We should endeavor to keep the category structure no more than two levels deep, for ease of use and maintenance.

-- Visviva 13:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too complicated

I think this idea has merit, but the current system of dozens of categories is too complicated. Nominators wouldn't be aware of which categories existed, and would frequently misfile a nomination. Voters would have to check dozens of lists to find the topics they want. If I may suggest something else... how about creating between five and ten categories total (like we do on WP:RFC). E.g. "religion", "fiction", "people" etc. Radiant_>|< 08:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you definitely have a point. Ideally I'd like to see a mix of both approaches. Perhaps we could have five-or-so main categories -- maybe arts & culture, science, geography, internet -- with nominators expected to place their nomination in one. Sorting into more precise categories and transcluded lists could be done (or not done) by other editors, as the spirit moved them. How does that sound? -- Visviva 06:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I am of the belief that: There should still be a comprehensive (ie. day-by-day account) list of VfD to which nominators post their VfD. It should be made easy for someone to nominate an article if they can back it up. Beyond that it should fall to an admin chore or interested editor (like myself) to sort them. Categories should be simple and obvious (ie. music, people). Relevant VfD should be posted on all active notice boards (ie. Canada Notice Board and/or like so). VfD should also be sorted according to their justification (ie. nn, vanity, etc.). -maclean25 05:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Too complicated indeed, at least in its current form. This would work as an adjuct to another deletion system for those who wish to optionally participate. However, I do not think this should be considered in any way as a primary replacement for AfD. Supplement, Pure wiki or Uncontested_deletion?, sounds great. ∴ here…♠ 07:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Utilize noticeboards

How about putting a deletion entry at a related noticeboard? This seems to be quite natural, as Wikipedia:Japanese Wikipedians' notice board, which I frequent, lists deletion votes. -- Taku 07:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've added a note to most of the relevant boards. If you notice one that I've missed, please feel free to add a note there too as well. -- Visviva 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help wanted, etc.

Hi everybody,

I've ended up investing most of my time in maintaining the lists of deletions, and I haven't really had time to work on any other aspects of this project. Meanwhile, VfD keeps getting bigger... So I have a two-part request: 1. If you have an interest in the broader goals of this project, such as categorized deletion (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting#Goals, please take the lead and formulate something. 2. If you'd like to help out with the deletion lists, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ready and move as many items as you want to your section (as I have done). Then sort them out, convert and upload. The deletions for each closed deletion log will be moved to /Ready, and kept there until they have been uploaded to the appropriate lists. (note that some of the redlinks are illusory-- please check before removing).

Thanks! -- Visviva 00:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List control

[ Post new topic ]

This is the central point for coordinating work on the various deletion lists maintained by WikiProject Deletion sorting. All Talk pages for those lists redirect here. This page is also transcluded at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help with this project! Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ready to find a list of unsorted articles on VfD.

[edit] From India

(posted on the discussion page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India)

While google search is a rough guide to checking a person's notability, it shouldn't be the only criteria for inclusion. For example, I've noticed that leaders of political parties in NE-India have hardly three or four webpages with their name on it. As we go back in time, it gets even worse. There was not a single page which had the name of Peter de Noronha, one of the most famous citizens of Kanpur, later knighted by the pope. So I suggest use the google search with caution, especially for dated figures. User:Nichalp/sg 13:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

A guideline reads "tagging discussions. This ensures that participants are aware of this list and of the discussion's presence on it. You can tag discussions by adding "

It isn't. It's a way you can help, if you want to. -- Visviva 06:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Songs and Albums

(posted on the discussion page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Songs and albums)

Wouldn't it be better to put new entries at the BOTTOM, for consistency with the VFD page? —Wahoofive (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably so. I started doing it this way (at the top) because I hadn't yet started to archive most pages. Now that most of the larger lists have an archive, it might be a good time to change Template:Deletionlist. -- Visviva 03:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm not so sure. Putting the new items at the top ensures that users can quickly see what's been added, even if the page takes a long time to load. I'm not really sure why VfD is sorted in the way it is. -- Visviva 01:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
History. If memory serves, VfD used to be a single sectioned page, like the Help Desk and Reference Desk currently are; new votes were added by adding a new section, which defaults to the bottom of the page. Shimgray 09:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that there is currently discussion on the talk page of VfD which may result in VfD reversing to put new items at the top - the same as on TFD, SFD, CFD, RFA, RFAr, FAC and just about every similar page on WP. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

OK, I've been working with/on the structure at /Flat for a while. For the most part I think the categories work fairly well for their purpose (more on that later). There are some changes that I'm about ready to make, but I want to post here just in case people have some feedback:

  • Science and medicine --> /Science and /Medicine. Not much overlap, and it would reduce the signal-to-noise ratio for interested users.
  • Americas--> /Latin America (rm Canada, US and transclude). Good idea? I'm not sure.

I'm also thinking of shortening most of the /A&B lists to /A, for ease of typing.

Some generally problematic lists:

-- Visviva 16:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Business

Can the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Business be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Business and Economics? pamri 17:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Closed" subpages

Should these be split by month or anything? Some of them are incredibly long. Alphax τεχ 05:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still active?

Are these categories all still active? I notice Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Music doesn't have a new entry since 28 August. pfctdayelise 00:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Furry lifestyler, Japanese?

I read this article (whose AfD is transcluded here) with mounting belief. Yes, it's all so silly, it has to be true; plus there's the solemn attention to a teapot tempest: The phrases "furry lifestyle" and "furry lifestyler" first appeared in July 1996 on the newsgroup alt.fan.furry during an ongoing dispute within that community. One element within furry fandom believed that any peripheral interests not directly relating to furry art did not belong under the furry umbrella, whereas others believed that the definition of what constituted furry was up to the individual. (Love that "furry umbrella"!)

But what's Japanese about it? Is it that any mention of reincarnation makes something Japanese? Or that any adult pursuit that's mind-numbingly infantile is somehow Japanese? -- Hoary 09:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business, Businesses, and Businesspeople

I'm planning to merge these three lists (of which Businesses is the only one currently maintained). This is partly because it will make automated sorting easier, and partly because I don't think there's anyone who has an interest in *businesses* or *businesspeople* who doesn't also have an interest in *business* generally. -- Visviva 10:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of transcluded

Could we have a plain-English word or explanation for transcluded, please? I would attempt one myself but might botch it up. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, nobody responded, so here goes: Brought from one part of Wikipedia into another part by reference. The question is, how is this done? GeorgeLouis 13:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this one. You transclude pages in the same way that you transclude templates. For instance, I have a little subpage at User:Visviva/Whos... to transclude that, I would type
{{User:Visviva/Whos}}
, which creates:
{{{author}}} (1996). "{{{chapter}}}", Who's who in Korean literature. Seoul: Hollym, {{{pages}}}. ISBN 1-56591-066-4. 
Similarly, you can transclude Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo onto a given page by typing {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo}} where you want it to appear. Double curly brackets are an amazing thing. Cheers, -- Visviva 14:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tip

Thanks to everyone who is updating this page. It is great help. In case you didn't know, I wanted to suggest that User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/Contested can be of use in updating. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian PROD articles

Is there any interest/place/provision to note PRODed articles. eg Taking Sides (Australian band). Paul foord 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some lists have been formatted to accommodate this... before suddenly running out of time for this project, I was working on a standardized model at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Template. Feel free to try it out, and see whether the sidebar format works for you or not. Cheers, -- Visviva 14:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Deletion sorting/ India or WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia

I think we can rename this as WikiProject Deletion sorting/SAARC or WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia as we have Pakistan as well as Srilankan articles also here  Doctor Bruno  09:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, pages exist for Pakistan and Sri Lanka: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka . I think some sorters list the articles on India page, because there are very few active Sri Lankan or Pakistani users. utcursch | talk 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture

This is just an observation--I am still going through this stuff and some of it is mind-numbingly off the wall--but to some extent this entire section comprises a real treasure--at least it will be in a generation or two. It chronicles many aspects of pop cutlure. Albeit not very well in some cases but if we had this sort of collection of articles on say, 13th century England, it would be highly valued. I am just saying, before completely deleting all of any article, ask yourself what would it signify to a reader who will not be born for another 20 years. So, careful with the broad strokes. Malangthon 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


As an example of the underlying rationale for my approach, let me point out a comment made recently by Alan Liu, an English professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, who "has developed a policy for appropriate use of Wikipedia as a source," in this case, in papers written by university students:

"(A) Wikipedia citation can be an appropriate convenience when the point being supported is minor, noncontroversial or also supported by other evidence.

"In addition, Wikipedia is an appropriate source for some extremely recent topics (especially in popular culture or technology) for which it provides the sole or best available synthetic, analytical or historical discussion."

Source Chris Freiberg (2006) ISDS News Some professors doubt credibility of site: Academics argue Wikipedia really can be a 'wikialitySept. 14, 2006 Malangthon 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's

Google hits must not be taken as a sole yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Newspapers of Vernacular Languages may have millions of readership. For example, in India every state has its own language. There are more than 20 widely speaking native languages in India. But the news reports from the newspapers of such languages are not available in google search.Take the case of Malayala Manorama Newspaper. Currently this Malayalam language newspaper has a readership of over 9 million, with a circulation base of over 1.4 million copies according to Audit Beureu of Circulations. Manorama is one of the India's largest selling and most widely read news paper. There are more than 50 such newspapers in India. News reports from such dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of readership. But news reports from English dailies with 1000 or 2000 copies are available in google search. It is really misleading...Isn't it...? In this context of notability tests based on google hits may be a worthless, foolish effort. In such circumstances we must consider the words of native wikipedians with more importance. May I know ur valuable opinion ……?  Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List

If this list was nominated for deletion, it would have to include itself. Just a thought – Qxz 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Javascript on page not formatted

The project page for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists is a bit jumbled after a subst of a heading template back on Feb 6. FYI. Also the talk page of that project page redirects here, which is a bit confusing. Gimmetrow 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page is broken

Page seems to be broken. See the end of "List of Australian Politicians". Can anyone fix??? AndyJones 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned about title of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel or Palestine

This could be construed as taking the POV that "Palestine" is a country or state. I would therefore suggest instead changing it to "Israeli or Palestinian" which thus takes no POV on the matter. JoshuaZ 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

This page has fallen into disuse, as it has been made redundant by useful sub-division into "Visual arts-related deletions", "Music-related deletions" and "Film and TV-related deletions". I propose it's deleted or turned into a disambig page (if they exist for this project). Tyrenius 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it possible to keep track of Images to be deleted?

Hello, I am wondering whether or not the very useful lists provided can be extended to include sorting for images that are up for deletion, either through Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, and its associated category Category:Images and media for deletion or through Wikipedia:Copyright problems? Regards --Free smyrnan 05:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my change to template:Deletionlist

I've made a change to Template:Deletionlist to change the line

"<nowiki>{{subst:delsort|(name of this list)}} -- ~~~~"</nowiki>

to

"<nowiki>{{subst:delsort|{{{1}}}}} -- ~~~~"</nowiki>

with the intent that users can then copy the line from the topic page and paste straight into the AfD page. This seems to work for places like Australia and Oceania where the first parameter is exactly the same as the page name. It may break for /Music (parameter is music with a lowercase 'm') and will probably break for /Songs and albums where the parameter is "individual songs or albums". Have I made a bad change, or should these parameters all get chased down and fixed to match the pagename? --Scott Davis Talk 07:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of categories

While this is a good idea and I have been tagging the entries for Australia, where could I or other users find a list so that entries in AfD can be tagged. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Archive1_0eba.html"