Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/March 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

I nominate "Bush Crimes Commission" for deletion, Due to the fact its not a real Commission at this time

Bush Crimes Commission

Reason: Not a real Commission

I mean i dont like Bush or anyone on captol hill right now, but this isnt a real Commission, i mean lets leave this for when Bush really starts getting impeached! Hopefully they'll really call it the "Bush Crimes Commission" when his impeachment process starts, but this isnt a commission at time time and also a commission has to be offically from the government, not from a bunch of protesters and thats why I...

Nominate For Deletion!!!HP465 19:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You can nominate this for deletion and get it voted on by following the regular AfD process. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's shut down afd for a day or two

That way we can get to 1,000,000 articles faster. Wouldn't that be neat? A Clown in the Dark 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this was the greatest idea I've ever seen. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JHMM13, that it will not be the greatest idea. UniReb (T | C) 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

group of articles being AFDed?

Are these articles

  • UK STD code 118
  • UK STD code 1251
  • UK STD code 1252
  • UK STD code 1438
  • UK STD code 1920

The sort of thing that are surviving, being deleted or not being posted? One of them has been up for cleanup for a long time but I don't know what to do with it. RJFJR 17:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Songs about fantasy-thoughts?

I think List of songs about fantasy-thoughts should be deleted since "Fantasy Thoughts" is extremely vague and broad. Also it serves no real purpose and is a very small article. Gelsamel 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I listed it on afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about fantasy-thoughts). - Bobet 11:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but incidentally, there are far too many of this "list of ____ songs" articles. It's, by nature, incomplete and there's far too little ability to back up the information. I also think it puts Wikipedia editors into the Grammy Award problem where we're forced to separate songs into specific categories. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Papillary muscles

The article Papillary muscles not only contains information that is incorrect and contains bad grammar, but there already a correct article with the name Papillary muscle. It probably should just be deleted. 66.188.29.115 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Porn Stars

What's the general feeling on porn stars? While clicking through random links I ran across Dick Nasty and Wesley Pipes, which seem to me to fail to meet a number of normal deletion guidelines like verifiability and importance. (They may be notable in their field but the articles do not assert it by, for example, stating number of films). There is also no evidence of recognition by write-up in the wider world, such is usually required for minor authors, non-porn models, and so forth. I'm sure there are more where these came from. I'm new enough that if this has been the subject of discussion before I haven't heard about it, and I don't want to bring a bunch of pointless AfDs or Prods.Thatcher131 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wesley Pipes article has the number of films he has been in, but the Dick Nasty article does not (he is one of the most notable porn stars, but the article should say why). They should both be much longer. I don't know if an AfD would be successful or not because many editors require a much higher standard of notability for porn stars than they do for other actors. If a regular actor simply has an IMDb page with a couple of minor credits, he or she is very likely to be kept. -- Kjkolb 06:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that you go look at WP:BIO and the related Talk page (and maybe the Talk page's archive). Porn stars have been discussed several times with emphasis on the points where our regular measures fail. That's probably a discussion which should be revived. Rossami (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Forthcoming movies

What's the deal with movies that are in production, or even preproduction (such as Knocked Up (2007)). Somehow they get a crystal ball exception? Thatcher131 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, in the example you mention, the production of that movie has been covered by good sources. There can be articles about future events and whatnot, there just has to be good information on them, as with any subject. Crystal ball clauses apply to pure conjecture... either claims with no sources, or bad ones (like a forum post, a rumor, etc). I guess it can seem like a blurry line, but good sources is the key. For future movies, if it's listed on IMDB, that's generally enough for most people. --W.marsh 06:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I generally agree that you've described the status quo with one big exception. IMDB is considered a unreliable source by many people. IMDB accepts "facts" from anyone who signs up for a free account, employs only 17 personnel who perform all functions including fact-checking and does not have the cultural controls (like Wikipedia's) to replace the traditional hierarchical controls. Please see The Internet Movie Database#Criticisms and the related discussions for more. Sources for movies still in production must be sourced from a verifiable source. Rossami (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just said it's enough for most people, which is true I think. I personally like to see a more reliable source. --W.marsh 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a lot of times there are press releases from studios that announce the filming of a new movie. In the case of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), Warner Brothers has set photography, cast interviews, and it's all widely accepted that they're making the film. For lower-budget and less in-the-spotlight films it may be harder to do, and from personal experience, I know it's possible to get some really, really, wrong information from IMDB. So unless the studio has released the information and fansites agree, I think we should count that stuff as crystal ballery. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually The Internet Movie Database#Criticisms makes us look bad, not them. We've criticized heavily an orgnaization, with no independent reliable sources cited (save one external link at end of article). Rather, it seems some people have written about personal experience/perception (in violation of our own supposed policies). Also, they have many high frequency/reliable/long-lasting contributors, who do fix errors that initially slip-through. Also, they (unlike Wikipedia) don't knowingly allow people to remain contributors, when they submit false information malisciously. They're a legitimate source, for some things, if used properly, and carefully. --Rob 19:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion by default

A lot of articles being brought to AfD are being deleted by unanimous decision (a lot have only a single keep, merge or redirect out of many deletes, as well), so perhaps articles should be prodded by default and taken to AfD only if someone objects (I think that such a person should have to explain on talk or the edit summary why he or she removed the tag and/or bring it to AfD themselves). However, if an editor is sure that deletion is controversial, they could take it to straight to AfD. Also, if the prod nominator has been convinced that the article should be kept, there is no need to take it to AfD. This would result in substantially fewer articles being brought to AfD, assuming that failed prod nominations do not already make up a large amount of uncontested AfD nominations. Having fewer articles on AfD would allow more concentration on the articles that do make it there and free up time to check prod nominations more thoroughly, which would hopefully result in fewer good articles being deleted. -- Kjkolb 13:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, since I only realized this "prod" thing yesterday as I've been kind of busy outside of Wikipedia, but I think that's sort of the idea already when they say "controversial," but not entirely. If a nominator feels, "Man, this is one of those articles I wish I could speedy delete, but it's not in the speedy deletion criteria..." then I think that's prod-worthy. If the nominator feels pretty sure it's worthy of deletion, but would like some other opinions, I think it should go to AfD. But for the question of going to AfD only if someone objects on that article's page or talk page, let's remember that there are many new-article creators who make the page and never return to it or even to Wikipedia. Just because someone isn't a Wikipedia addict like me doesn't mean their contribution is any greater or less than mine. As always, we're bringing this down to an individual user's decision, and I think that's what Wikipedia is about after all. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Prod should have increased the kept to deleted article ratio on AfD, but it seems to have gone down. If this is actually occuring, then perhaps articles that would survive AfD are being deleted through prod. If this is the case, we should either shut down prod, modify it, or provide more oversight. If AfD's load is further lightened (hopefully down to 20-50 a day), perhaps more time can be spent watching prod (that's a lot of assumption, though). Just something I'm throwing out there. :-) Kjkolb 14:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Since most prodded articles aren't deleted, it's not exactly fair to say it's deleting articles that would have survived afd. If anything, it's letting articles that would have been deleted by afd squeak through - taking the bottom 200 articles listed there as a sample, 36 have been deleted by prod, 37 via other processes, and 127 are still around. —Cryptic (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the statistics, Cryptic. With those numbers, prod may not be a viable solution for handling the bulk of our non-speedy deletions, especially if articles are not taken to AfD if the template is removed. I was just guessing based on the number of keeps on AfD, which I expected to increase after prod was instituted. We cannot be sure if the articles that would survive AfD are the ones being kept, though. It only takes one person to object to a prod, so article creators and enthusiasts can thwart deletion of truly bad articles, while some good/borderline articles might be deleted because no one who cared saw it. However, I think that few good articles are being deleted, since there seems to be so much activity on the log. -- Kjkolb 21:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
From monitoring WP:AFD/Old, I see no major decrease in total AfD debates. As far as I'm concerned, prod hasn't really been working. It helps, but it has not helped greatly. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
#Recent stats? suggests strongly otherwise. It seems strange to me that you don't see any difference. Before PROD, nominations per day hovered around 180-200+, now they are in the region of 100-130. PROD has had a significant impact, and is working excellently. -Splashtalk 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Hello
Ok, so I extended Guettarda's analysis backwards and forwards some. This shows AfD nominations from 1 December 2005 thru 11 March 2006, with the switch-on of PROD indicated. It seems to me that PROD has indeed reduced AfD's load quite significantly: it has never been above the 1 December level since PROD deletions began. Given the long-term increasingly rapid rise in AfD's load (visible even over the course of January 2006), this is a surely good thing. -Splashtalk 00:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Great graph, thanks for creating that! Pictures always help. What I'm seeing here, and correct me if I'm wrong in my evaluation, is that PROD bought some time before we hit 200 a day on AfD again, but that it wasn't an order of magnitude reduction... more like eliminating 30-40% rather than 90%??? That says to me that 200 a day isn't that far off unless PROD, CSD or AfD itself (or something else, but what) are changed further. 200/day is kinda my "it's not workable any more" threshold... Now, was 30% worth the extra effort that using PROD imposes on articles (if they go through both)? Depends on what is done with the time that is bought and on how much effort is extra and what proportion of articles go through both. Success? Yes. Grand Slam? no. But worth it, probably. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto Lar. As I said, PROD helps, but it does not help greatly. I was really expecting a more substantial decrease, as from my experience, at least approximately half of any given day's AfD debates are uncontested keeps or deletes. This proportion has not been altered all that significantly by PROD, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I still see a bundle of AFDs that should have been PRODS. Perhaps if we start dropping notes on the talk pages of nominators for likely prod candidates like "you might not be aware of..." I also note that some people are really making a meal of removing prod tags from articles that later end up on AFD anyway. - brenneman{L} 05:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Watching this talk page without watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion?

Is it possible to do that? The AfD page is always changing, so it's annoying to have on the watch list, I'd just like to have this talk page. Thanks. Esquizombi 05:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not possible. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That seems unfortunate, however. Esquizombi 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion pages for AfDs

How are the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/(Article name) pages meant to be used? Esquizombi 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In practice, they are mostly used when discussion on the main deletion page is deemed overly long. Someone will move the discussion there, or future discussion will start occuring there. Sometimes it is used after the AfD to discuss the AfD or the closing, though it should be noted that I don't think most closers watch AfDs that they close. --W.marsh 01:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think what you're talking about here is how do they work with regard to the main AfD page. Every AfD gets its own page and that page is then linked to from that day's AfD page like a template. When you click "edit" on that day's AfD page for that article, you are editing the subpage and it will update the day's AfD page at the next cache update for your computer or for the page (I think...I'm no technician). Hope this helps, JHMM13 (T | C) 07:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I meant along what W.marsh wrote above: when the "Wikipedia talk" AKA "Discussion" pages for individual AfDs are supposed to be used, and how they are supposed to be used. Also, when the AfD is closed, the talk page does not get closed (or at any rate, the notice does not also appear on that page). Does the notice "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." apply only to the Project Page for individual closed AfDs or does it also apply to the Discussion page? Esquizombi 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/(article name) should not generally be used. They are not really part of the deletion discussion and therefore are not really necessary to close. Now, there are a few exceptions. Sometimes, when sockpuppets or vandals attempt to hijack the discussion, someone will move the most egregious rants over to the talk page so the rest of the AFD discussion can proceed smoothly. That's pretty rare and is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In my experience, it doesn't work particularly well but some people think it can calm the discussion.
It's also not unknown for a new user to see the AFD discussion and attempt to use the Talk page to comment about how upset they are with the discussion and the decision that their pet article got deleted. Those comments are generally ignored - not on purpose but just because as you say, nobody else ever looks at those pages. A few people do use them when the discussion becomes overly long. Personally, I prefer to just un-transclude the discussion page. That keeps the full discussion in one place and makes it much easier for the closer. Rossami (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm generally not so keen on this practice. When it happens, in my view, it's important to put a note (fairly bold so it jumps out) somewhere on the AfD page to let people know there IS a discussion... but I'd like to see it discouraged except in the most extreme cases of need. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, alright. Well sorry for not knowing :-D. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD Footer

The AfD footer needs to be edited so it points to the correct date's AfD list (March 15 instead of 14). I don't appear to have access to do it. Hynca-Hooley 00:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing this problem has been solved? Maybe someone had just not gotten around to it yet. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate For Deletion

I already put up the "Afd" Header thing, and I decided to post here. I think "Mystera_Legends:Janelle's_(_A_server_of_ML)" should be deleted. Its just one giant advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iced Kola (talk • contribs)

I have removed the AfD tag from this article and replaced it with a prod for the reason you stated above. Please refer to the article's talk page for further discussion. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete small disambig pages?

I'm sort of new. I've been scanning through AfD and PROD recently, and I noticed one (I forget where) that nominated a disambiguation page because it only redirected to two pages. The editor said that if there's only two then you should use a disambiguation link. I'm currently involved in a discussion about disambiguation between an article I wrote (Richard C. Casey) and an existing article (Richard Casey). I placed a disambig link on the top of their article, but somebody suggested that we should create a disambig page. I just want to get everybody's feeling on this, because I'm new, and I wouldn't want my page to be deleted. Thanks! --Hyphen5 11:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry no one has answered yet, Hyphen5, but I'll give you my opinion. It looks like Richard Casey, Baron Casey is the more notable person. In such cases you would usually make Richard Casey a redirect to that article and then put a link to the Richard C. Casey at the top of the page. Keeping the disambiguation page might be okay if there is one person is not significantly more notable than the other. -- Kjkolb 13:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Attacking the janitor

Once again I get insulted by the author of an article I deleted as a result of its AfD discussion. This person says that "just because I have never heard of Hugh Flynt doesn't mean he's not notable". It's true I have never heard of Hugh Flynt, but I did not base my deletion on this! If he had actually taken the trouble to read the AfD discussion, he would have seen three delete votes and no keep votes (not even his own). As a Wikipedia janitor I would have been out of line if I had not deleted the article. What would I have written? "The result was KEEP. Screw consensus, screw policy. I will keep the article just to please its author."? What can we do to make people understand AfD resolution is not a personal matter? JIP | Talk 11:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh...get used to it? I used to get these all the time when I closed AfDs, and I still get them once in a while when somebody comes back after several months and finds the article is gone. There's no real way to make people understand except by talking to them, one on one. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, part and parcel of VfD/Old - You'll always have to deal with angry editors who found that you have deleted their articles, either with or without knowledge that you are just clearing up VfD/Old. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above users. Teaching people how Wikipedia works is a long, difficult process that is often thankless, but there are some users that make it all worth it. Stick to it! JHMM13 (T | C) 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "formerly VfD"

Seems to be a possible minor revert action brewing about the (formerly VfD) phrasing of the lead sentence. For what it is worth I support leaving that parenthetical in. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I've just archived two months of stuff. Apologies if I killed any active conversations; feel free to move them back. Shimgray | talk | 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Plez explain how to renominate an article for deletion

Hi admins or other wikicompetents, if you know how to do this correctly, as a public service please rewrite the official explanation. I tried to figure out how to do this by experimentation and it was a disaster! (Which I tried to fix, but please don't yell at me since I don't think it was my fault; the instructions are simply inadequate.) No need to reply on my talk page, if I ever want to try again I'll go to the instructions and if they haven't changed I won't even bother trying. TIA for your attention---CH 17:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into this? I think it's a valid complaint that someone on the leading edge of Wikipolicy should address. I had similar problems when I was starting up. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If you still have a problem, drop a note on my talkpage - I'll try and help you out. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have the same complaint. I have tried to renominate articles and really screwed things up. I still don't know how to do it and think that there still may be some damage from my attempt. (which I don't know how to fix) Tobyk777 05:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No more "meatpuppet"

The word "meatpuppet" is an example of a word that is almost always used to bite newbies. Its use has been discouraged by WP:SOCK for months now (although that page was just rewritten to follow its own advice), and it has now been added to WP:BITE by a small consensus. The policy has recently been reaffirmed by a discussion on the Village Pump. However, it is clear that many users are unaware of the policy, especially on AfD.

Please avoid calling newbies "meatpuppets". They are legitimate new users, even if they originated from the same place. They may not understand Wikipedia's processes yet, but you won't help anything by calling them names. Just let them know politely that their vote may be disregarded, and welcome them so that they might become a better contributor. You'd be surprised how many good, active Wikipedians originally started editing so they could participate in a vote.

Possible objection: But how do I point out that there are meatpuppets involved in a vote?

You don't have to. The closing admin will know that votes from new users should be discounted. Again, you may want to leave a polite message for these new users. If you feel that a vote is closed improperly because too much weight is given to anonymous and new users, take it to Deletion Review.

Possible objection: Meatpuppetry makes me angry! I need to say something about it!

Please don't. Yes, newbies can be frustrating, but it makes no sense to attack them. By controlling your emotions, you can make AfD more civil.

So should I call them sockpuppets instead?

Certainly not, unless you have evidence that two accounts are the same person, or have done a Request for CheckUser. This isn't just about the word; it's about not attacking newbies unnecessarily.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't have a policy forbidding the use of certain words. This is not 1984. You can have an exhortation against it, but it simply can't be policy. However, BITE is only a guideline (!) so I guess it's ok. But you still can't really excise a word from vocabulary with an edit or two. -Splashtalk 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean it to come across as censoring a certain word. The overarching policy is not to bite newbies. The observation is that "meatpuppet" is often used as a disparaging term aimed at newbies, so by avoiding that word you're biting newbies less. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly legitimate to place a standardised, templatised box at the top of an AfD explaining how things work, it's even OK to give information on the number of edits a user has, but it's important that it be done civilly and welcomingly. Words that carry pejorative connotation should be avoided if possible. That's all this is trying to say. We don't have an explicit guideline saying "don't call newbies stupid poopieheads" because we have WP:CIVIL for that, as it's fairly clear that calling someone a stupid poopyhead is incivil and everyone knows that from real world experience. Meatpuppet, though, is a word that has shaded over to pejorative from where it started, and worse, one that carries meaning here beyond what meaning it has out there in the rest of reality. It's an insider's word, and therefore one to be avoided. Will this change usage 100% instantly? No but it might help move things a bit... ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Despite an arbitration finding otherwise, I personally always take care to only state facts and avoid the pejoratives when flagging "very new" users. I also drop a note on the talk page of users whom I see striking through votes with "just another meatpuppet" or its ilk. Gentle application of the cluebat and the occasional redaction is a much better way to solve the problem than YAPRoG. - brenneman{L} 05:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet another Policy Rule or Guideline. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 05:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for stopping insulting people, but I view meatpuppeting an abuse of the AfD process. The author of an article doesn't get any more votes just because he tells a bunch of friends, who have never edited Wikipedia before (or even heard of it before) to come to "support him". As a Wikipedia admin, when I close AfDs, I will ignore all "keep" votes by users whose only edits are to the AfD page, and possibly to the article it's about. JIP | Talk 14:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And so you should, and I thank you for it. Process wonks such as myself would expect no less. If you want to go further and explain why it is so with comments of your own under the comments of such users, that's even better. This thinking only applies to the terminology used in doing so. In general it's a good thing to avoid pejorative wording if you possibly can, but especially here, as every one of those new editors is a potential convert to our cult mission of building something really cool. If we can welcome all, even voices we discount, in such a way that they think "what a fine bunch of folks, even though things didn't go the way I wanted, I think I want to help this project out and actually get involved more", isn't that goodness? ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how you can possibly think that anybody is going to be encouraged to edit more by completely disregarding their contribution to the discussion. I don't think the terminology matters when you're still basically telling people they can take their opinion and shove it. --Cheapestcostavoider 04:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a vote. So nobody has any votes to begin with. No substantive comments should be disregarded on the basis of a user's edit history. --Cheapestcostavoider 04:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I should clarify that my original comment was not intended to suggest that we should be calling people meatpuppets. I avoid using the terminology myself, particularly when I'm writing closure notes on AfDs. This is mainly because what we're really getting at is not so much the blogged "Vote for Me on Wikipedia" thing but establishing that i)there is no ballot box for the stuffing and ii)the 'rough consensus' determination is carried out principally among established editors. We don't actually need the meatpuppetry terminology to do that, because it fails to deal properly with the (ii). We all know that established editors can and do turn up to 'stuff' the notballot box at times (this is one weakness of AfD) and it can be very, very hard for a closing admin to turn such an AfD on its head in the manner they would if they were..."newer editors on a mission". I think it ok to call a spade a spade, however, and I don't have difficulty with people saying "first ever edit" and the like since it can be informative to both other editors to the debate and the closing admin. I also have no problem with people identifying actual sockpuppets since that kind of puppetry is just not on. -Splashtalk 18:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sensing mostly in agreement, then? How to word this, then... so that it's not mandate, not instruction creep, but gets the point across? (and ya, sock ness monsters are something to be quite a bit stronger about... after all, we've presumably already conviced the puppeteer to contribute! In fact, it's actually rather less contributing we're looking for!) Care to take a crack at it Splash? ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD Categories?

Would it be useful to create some categories for AFD pages - so that a person can (for eg) review past AFDs concerning Academics or whatever. Might help us with consistency... Regards, Ben Aveling 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh, now that's interesting. The nominator could add cats if they wanted to, and other people could simply add the categories as they feel like it when they are editing the AfD page. It's quite a nice extension of the fairly regular "this debate has been listed at ProjectX's deletion listing" notes. -Splashtalk 00:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea. There's a deletion sorting project already (which is where some of those ProjectX thingies are coming from), how would it dovetail? Categories are similar but different... this has a lot of potential, I'm thinking... Let's hear more brainstorming! ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ohhh, shiny! - brenneman{L} 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Er, I meant more useful brainstorming, Kiki! Was there more you wanted to say? I guess my question is, would the categories be much broader than regular article categories so that there were only a few dozen of them, all told? (for example, no more than what you see on Wikipedia:Browse?) Or would it be just as fine grained as the regular category system? And would it be optional and only done when felt like, up to the nom to always do, or done by a team of folk (or bots?) who did it shortly after articles appeared? ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking one top level category, with sub-categories for things with subject-specific notability criteria. For eg, Category:AFD discussion, Category:AFD discussion/music and Category:AFD discussion/academics. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Created 2 of the above 3 categories, and added 3 articles i was already aware of, as a sample mainly. I've also created Category:AFD discussion/other as a catch all. It might be useful to create sub-sub-categories for Kept, Deleted, No Consensus, but that can be done if/when it becomes clear there is a need. One side effect is that pages like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_12 are also being categorised. I'm not sure if it's a bug or a feature. Let's call it a feature. See what you think. If you like it, we can start adding more categories and we can start advertising their existence in the notability pages. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this is helpful and a good idea, but I wonder if there is any way to sort it by outcome. I'm thinking of something along the lines of what we have for RfAs, where you can look specifically at failed or successful candidates. --Cheapestcostavoider 20:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Noms w/o delete recommendations? Not that it's a vote.

I've seen several articles added to AFD with descriptions by the person adding it that imply they're recommending delete (as the mere action of putting it on AFD does), but without actually stating delete. Are these treated as delete recommendations, or are they ignored? Esquizombi 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

They are exalted beyond any other nominations, for they are the noms of people who Truly Get It. AfD is not a poll, and someone who can write a convincing argument for deletion, and remember the difference between nominating and simply putting in a bullet point and a fancy bolded world, is far more valuable than your bog-standard run-of-the-mill "nn, d" jerk. Your question, "are they counted as delete recommendations", thus becomes irrelevant, as a discussion is not an exercise in vote-counting. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Your reply is a little befuddling and a little uncivil. I'm not saying that the person adding it should simply write "nn, d" which would indeed tend to be unhelpful. Rather, that I'm not sure why there are some posts where an explanation is given but no explicit recommendation is given in addition to the reason. In practice many (most?) closing admins do tally the recommendations and seem to give that higher priority than analyzing the comments made, and for that matter there are bots that on other pages are tallying bolded text. I note also that the instructions on how to add a page to state "Replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted, and include a reason why you think the page should be deleted, where indicated. If you like, you can begin your "reason" with Delete. This will count as your vote in the deletion poll." Esquizombi 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. AfD is not a vote (that's why it was renamed from Votes for Deletion). And please, use common sense. If the nominator puts it on AfD and provides several reasons to delete the article, why shouldn't it be treated as a recommendation to delete? This is inane wikilawyering. I don't know about those bots that tally "votes", but I personally would find them counter-productive. The instructions on nominating look pretty stupid -- I can't imagine why a nominator should be "voting", but in the first place, AfD is not a vote, nor is it a poll. It is first and foremost a discussion, with elements of strawpolling. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why I'm attracting uncivil comments. I'm not wikilawyering, I saw exceptions to what seemed to be the predominant practice, and I was wondering why they were different, and how they are treated. Maybe I should have asked at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I didn't write the instructions. I try not to refer to AfD as a vote, although the instructions are not the only place where it is referred to as one and I'm afraid I do find the insistance a little peculiar since in practice it is treated as one even if it's not meant to be. As for the counting bots see e.g. User:Dragons flight/AFD summary. Esquizombi 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not exactly fun correcting the same mistakes over and over again, especially when the vast majority of the people who make these mistakes do tend to be wikilawyering and upset because AfD made the "wrong" decision. And as I said, AfD is a discussion with elements of strawpolling. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Whilst the editor now has the answer to the question, I really think the amount of biting that Fuddlemark and Johnleemk have decided to engage in is entirely unnecessary. AfD has many of the outward appearances of a vote, and the questions asked are ones that are encountered really quite commonly. -Splashtalk 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I warnt engaging in newbie-biting; I was trying to be funny and failing. There's a difference.
By the by, I note that an increasing amount of documentation about AfD is written by AfD newbies, for AfD newbies. "If you'd like your vote to count, you should ...", etc. I guess those of us who know how the various aspects of Wikipedia works should pay more attention to what "official policy" (that is, documents that give the appearance of same) says about those aspects (whatever they are), because sooner or later they'll stop reflecting best practices. They've already started negatively affecting the way people "vote" on AfD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Refer to my comment above. Maybe I just tend to assume that existing deletion policy/documentation makes it clear that AfD is not a vote. And from personal experience, I can say that most (two-thirds?) people who ask questions about vote tallying and the like tend to be upset that their pet article was deleted or that some "obvious" cruft article was kept. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of references to voting. Feel free to change any others you can find. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I can safely say my pet article will never wind up on AFD, and if it did would be speedy kept as a bad faith nom. And while I have been annoyed at fannish listcruft or other junk being kept in obvious contravention of policy, I can't recall any of those having been cases where the nom did not explicitly identify their recommendation (nor were they cases where one more recom one way or the other would have made a difference). I really was just observing exceptions to the common practice and wondered about the possible consequences, so put me in that 1/3. As for references to voting, I think there are still a lot e.g. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion, Wikipedia:Straw polls, etc. honestly... preferring euphemisms and not referring to them as "votes" can get awkward and silly. And as I wrote above, in practice it seems like simple tallying is all that is done in closing (sometimes the tally is even included in the admin's closing remarks) whereas the sensible guidelines (IMO) are found at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Addition_to_the_guidelines, but how many admins follow those? Esquizombi 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I never said you weren't part of that 1/3rd. ;-) Anyway, the first link you provided explicitly states that AfD is not a vote, and emphasised that it's a discussion with elements of strawpolling. The straw poll page again emphasises how it is different in nature from people's usual idea of a vote. It looks like simple tallying is all that is done, but it's not. Otherwise anyone could close a deletion debate (except those that resulted in decisions to delete). The reason only admins and experienced users can close debates is because they are expected to know how to gauge consensus appropriately. The vote tally might be a factor in this decision, but it shouldn't have to be. It certainly should not be used in wedge cases. Some (most?) admins I know who close deletion debates either ignore the vote tally, or don't make it a major factor in their gauging of consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 17:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There's still a reference to voting in the three step nomination process, "Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the voting process in your watchlist" (emphasis added). Would that be better as "polling," "recommendation" or is it OK as voting? Esquizombi 17:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed AfDs and printing

It has been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#AFD discussions that closed AfDs are blank when printed. This happens because they use the CSS class metadata, which is explained at Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes as "Used to mark metadata that should not be printed". After looking for more details, I also found out that:

  • It also uses the CSS class boilerplate, which is not styled anywhere on Monobook I could find (I didn't look at other skins); the explanation on the catalogue is "Another Template class", which doesn't help. However, I'd guess it's used for some boilerplate pastel boxes.
  • Instead of using a CSS class for its styling, all of its style (at least on Monobook) comes from an inline style attribute (confirmed by Firefox's DOM Inspector).
  • The CSS class vfd is also not styled anywhere on Monobook.

So, I propose the following changes:

  • Change class="boilerplate metadata vfd" to class="vfd". This requires warning AllyUnion first, as explained on Template talk:Afd top;
  • Move the style from an inline style to MediaWiki:Common.css (using the vfd class);
  • Find the other templates which also descended from {{vfd top}} and fix them the same way (for instance, {{mfd top}});
  • Get a bot to fix all the places the templates were used.

--cesarb 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems ok as for the change of the style. However, it may be that we do not need to change the old discussions: the following is in MediaWiki:Monobook.css
@media print {
/* Do not print edit link in templates using Template:Ed
Do not print certain classes that shouldn't appear on paper */
.editlink, .noprint, .metadata, .dablink { display: none }
#content { background: #FFFFFF; } /* white background on print */
}

this might be changed to something like (possibly this should go in MediaWiki:Common.css as well?):

@media print {
/* Do not print edit link in templates using Template:Ed
Do not print certain classes that shouldn't appear on paper */
.editlink, .noprint, .metadata, .dablink { display: none }
div.vfd { display: block }
#content { background: #FFFFFF; } /* white background on print */
}

According to the css specification, the div.vfd rule should "win" because it more specific than the .metadata one (and also appears after it). If this works, it may avoid the problem of running a bot to change the old afd discussions (of course, there is also a problem of changing the other skins). - Liberatore(T) 14:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

knights of order deletion

i think that this page serves no academic purpose. it is a commercial advertisement for joining the knights of order and i recommend it to be deleted ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowabunga5587 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what article you are talking about. However, if you wish to nominate an article for deletion, you can follow the normal steps as seen on the project page. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I nominate The Holy for deletion

The Holy should be deleted because it has been a stub that has violated copyrights twice. General Eisenhower 00:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)User:General Eisenhower 6:24 March 24th, 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to post a notification here when you start an AfD - the AfD itself is sufficient. And copyvios generally go to WP:CP instead. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Easy Company (comics) duplication

So, I was bouncing through wiki today, and i could NOT find Easy Company (comics) AT ALL. treied it a few ways, bounced to google, nothing. I have NO clue why i couldn't find it, but i couldnt. So i went and 'started' it. Unfortunately, it's already here. I just could NOT find it.but lo and behld, i coome bac kfrom dinner to do more wokr on 'my' EC page, and damned if it wasn't right there, full and old. so, I madea new one, but now i can't figure out an easy way to undo my mistake. I had to get a meta.wiki account to make it... so while i'm sure i didn't break the internet, i did commit a big blunder. sorry, and if anyone can help, that'd be great. —This unsigned comment was added by ThuranX (talk • contribs) .

  • I believe your problem could have been very likely been fixed by now - no worries about that. :) - Mailer Diablo 12:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Format change to daily logs

I don't know where/how this is set but... it would be nice if there was a footer on the daily log pages, which had the forward and back links to the next and previous day's daily logs. This is already up at the top of those pages, but if you read the page top to bottom, you then have to scroll all the way back up to do the next logical navigation function. This is a major user interface faux pas for website design 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 05:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

List of bands

I really don't have time to do this, but List of bands by state (which is also a huge US bias), the subpages (e.g. List of bands from Alabama) alongside list of bands from <country X> should really go. they are much better as categories. But, I don't have the time to go to each page and add all that stuff. Is there someone willing to do that, or some way to skip doing that? --Midnighttonight 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus."

Ok, this is finally annoying me. I think admins should stop using this phrasing, as it indicates something of a misrepresentation of what is meant. If there is a consensus to delete, then delete. If there is no consensus to delete, then do not delete. But why do we need a "clearer" consensus? What you mean is "This AfD is being relisted to generate enough discussion that a decision may usefully be reached". And must it always be in bold, italic, red, centered writing? -Splashtalk 00:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The wording is coded in {{relist}}, and since that page doesn't seem very active, I'd say that you can be bold and just change it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Huh. I should have guessed that a widely-used mistake would be the fault of a template. Someone already incorporated my sentence above, but that was an off-the-cuff remark. I tightened things up a little. I also took out the terrible red ink, and will file a bugzilla request that the use of red be parsed out of wikitext by MediaWiki. -Splashtalk 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the wording change is fine, but I like having the bold color for emphasis, so people are almost certain to know the AfD has been relisted. This will also help if an AfD has been relisted but an admin forgot to de-transclude it (who would do such a thing!), without the emphasized relist notice, the AfD might get closed by another admin, leading to confusion. --W.marsh 00:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well done. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see the whole concept of relisting go away, frankly. If there wasn't a clear consensus, leave it be and relist the article/template/category/misc/whatever after a decent interval instead of forum-shopping (a relist is, IMHO, a kind of forum shopping, although it's shopping in timespace rather than decision venuespace) till you get the answer you want. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've had this arguement made to me before as I'm a notorious re-lister. However, some articles get multiple "no consensus" closes with increasing levels of rancour. I'm in favour of allowing discussion to end themselves. What I'd be interested in would be some durin-style numbers: how many get relisted, what's the distribution in recomendations before after, etc.
brenneman{L} 04:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well relists just get under my skin because they seem... arbitrary. Idea! (wait for it...) what if there was some sort of guideline laid down in advance about when relisting makes sense, like, if it had less than 3 comments total or less than 5 and it wasn't 5-0 or something similar. Policy wonks like me would then not be so arbitraried-out by it because it would be known going in that it might be relisted instead of being a surprose. (And it would be just a teeny weeny little bit of instruction creep, and I promise I'd take care of him and make sure he didn't chew the davenport arms... can we, can we, huh?) OK, more seriously, if there's a big clog at AfD, it seems to me that relisting things makes the volume problem worse. Maybe we should ban the very idea! ++Lar: t/c 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
No. Sometimes an AfD with a lot of comments is still unclear; perhaps it's full of absurd "make a vote and leave"-type comments, or perhaps what's been written is really hard to gauge, or perhaps the would-be closer just has this feeling that relisting would help this particular article (don't laugh). Also, sometimes an AfD is so damn slamn-dunk that it can be closed as delete even when only two or three people thought to opine. Policy wonkism needs a damn fine reason to justify its existence, and absent of any of Durin's fancy graphs, I don't see one here yet. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head, Mark. It's difficult to objectively state the criteria I use for relisting. I usually just see whether the discussion appears to have concluded or not, and/or if anything new has suddenly cropped up, which might make the previous voters (for lack of a better word) change their minds. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
As a not-as-regualar-as-I-once-was closer of AFD debates, I very rarely relist things, and when I do it's because there have been no contributions at all apart from the nomination (if there is nothing to go on, then there's nothing to go on and a single person does not constitute a "consensus"). Instead, when faced with a tough AFD debate I usually go carefully through it and write a much-too-long essay summing up the discussion and about why I am closing with that particular result. Relisting AFDs has its points (further discussion on a still contentious topic), but the increased popularity of doing so contributed greatly to the huge 200+ noms/day logs which we saw prior to the advent of {{prod}}, something which drew focus from other nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd also note that once something has had it's time and been relisted, it can be closed at any time by whomever has the stones to do so. - brenneman{L} 13:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)