User talk:Dragons flight/AFD summary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Data Request/ Question

Hi! I would be interested in retrieving some deleted articles in the English Wikipedia for academic research purposes, how would I go about that, who should I contact? Thank you! Buburuza 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

How often do you update this ? Tintin Talk 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now, every 2 hours. Next one in about 25 minutes. Dragons flight 16:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy keeps

How about, instead of having a special column for speedy keeps, just putting "5+4" in the keep column, meaning 5 normal and 4 "speedy" keeps? The less columns (I count 9 similar-looking ones) the better. r3m0t talk 22:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impressive!

Hey there! Just wanted to drop by and comment on your very impressive work! It's quite a full summery and I'm sure it will be useful to many. Where did you learn to do all of this? It can't be just javascript, is there another language like PHP or Perl involved? --Lightdarkness 05:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just adding my opinion: excellent work! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

It would be great if this could identify sockpuppets. Parse the paragraph to find the signature, then do a query to find out how many contributions the signing user has made. I realize it's not easy to define exactly what makes somebody a sockpuppet, but certainly an edit count in the low single digits would qualify. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In my current configuration, looking up contributions on each voter would be too impractical. Sorry. Dragons flight 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Percentages

It might be wise to eliminate "percentage" value if the number of votes is small. Looks very impressive to see a 100% vote for deletion, until you notice there's only one vote. Or at least change the background color (to blank) for small votes. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work!

I'm glad to see someone is trying to streamline this process. As it is, due to the detail on the page it loads rather slow, though not so bad. I really think the nominator topic should be included, possibly a 100 char summary (with the small tag) and a (more...) link or something like that. It's a lot more difficult to scan when you have no context whatsoever for each article.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strikeouts

If someone changes a vote so that it looks like this: MergeDelete does the bot count the Merge vote still? If so, would it be possible to make remove the original vote from the count? I don't know if it would be worthwhile, but perhaps it could even keep a tally of changed votes. Esquizombi 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Struck out text is ignored, always has been. Dragons flight 15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD is not a vote

Given that AFD is an attempt to reach consensus, not a vote, would it be possible to change references to 'votes' to something else, perhaps 'recommendations'? Weight of numbers is perhaps a factor, but it is not, or at least should not be, the deciding factor. Thanks, Ben Aveling 16:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ben. This whole thing operates on the misguided basis that AfD's are competitions between keep and delete voters and that getting above a certain threshold percentage "wins". It actually kind of does work that way but it shouldn't as AfD is not a vote (or it would still be VfD) and this page and its subpages kind of encourage that mindset. — GT 04:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
~94% of all AFDs are closed in a manner consistent with whether or not a 2/3 majority voted to delete. You guys can play word games all you like, but if it looks like a vote, and works like a vote, I am going to call it a vote. Dragons flight 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not about semantics. After considerable discussion and per policy and guidelines a conscious decision was made to change the entire process's name from "Votes for Deletion" as it mistakenly implied that the process was a vote. It isn't, despite the misconceptions you and many editors have, and any similarity (statistical or otherwise) the current process might have is something that needs to be worked on. I'm sorry that your "research" and work is based around the erroneous assumptions that AfD's are polls and that sockpuppets and those who only say "Keep" or "Delete" contribute as much towards building a consensus as valid and reasoned arguments, but the fact remains that you and your summary pages are in disagreement with the purpose of AfD and I strongly request that you come to terms with this. — GT 07:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I know, I participated in that "conscious decision". Though actually you linked the wrong archive. The one you linked was actually a proposal that failed. The one that resulted in the renaming is here. Keep in mind that a process that had been called "Votes for deletion" for over 3 years was renamed and the word "vote" stripped from its descriptions but no other substantive changes were made to the process. Hence the change was largely cosmetic. The simple truth is that AFD is a poll. It is a poll where sockpuppets, trolls, and the occasional attempt at anarchy (i.e. votes against policy) get discounted, and all the statements about policy exist to justify disenfranchising people who are being dumb or disruptive, but it is still in essence a poll. In close cases, reasoned opinions from serious contributors get counted up and supermajority wins unless there is a clear intervening factor (e.g. the article changed substantially during the discussion). If you don't like that, then feel free to propose a solution that doesn't involve votes, but presently AFD clearly does. Dragons flight 07:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I only very recently (last couple months or so) started participating in AfD's on a regular basis and my biggest complaint is that you're completely right -- despite the superficial changes it's still very much a de facto poll. You must agree however that this SHOULDN'T be the case, at least not if we are to respect the decisions the community has made (especially the correct one that you linked to) and the basic Wikipedia principles I linked to before. I just have issues with the fact that your AfD summary pages refer to things such as number of votes and percentage on each side as though they alone represent the current state of the discussion or its outcome. Your page is linked to from WP:AFD as "summaries of ongoing AFDs" and admittedly there probably is not a better way to systematically summarize them other than counting votes, but I just wish it didn't present the deletion percentages and such as being indicators of the status of the AfD, as the entire purpose of the aforementioned discussions was to disavow such thinking. — GT 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dragons flight. What about calling them !Vote? -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weirdness on Hikari Hayashibara and 2006 April 27

Hikari Hayashibara is listed as having only one vote, even though there are many and there is an entry for Log/2006 April 27 that oddly has 75% voting to delete it. I didn't see anything odd about the subpage on the first one or the AFD log on the 27th (other than someone using {{Afd-privacy}} on Stephanie Adams which links to the AFD log's history erroneously and one AFD being protected without the protection tag noincluded). I wish I had known about this sooner as it seems very useful for finding AFDs that haven't been closed. I don't know why I never checked it out after seeing it on many AFD page's What links here. Kotepho 09:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Save/keep

I just saw a newbie writing "save" instead of "keep". I suggest you add it as a synonym. r3m0t talk 11:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome Tool

I bookmarked this tool a few months ago and I use it on a daily basis. Never had the chance to thank you for your contribution. OSU80 22:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on counting / speedy keep for article

Greetings, I was wondering when the bot updates votes. Specifically, the University of Miami custodial workers' strike should have something like 11 keep/strong keep/speedy keep votes by now, but that isn't yet represented in the chart. Just wondering when this will be resolved. Thanks! Universitytruth 12:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closed AfDs

Can you make this ignore AfDs that have been closed? New comments are not allowed and it would make closing unequivocal keeps much easier. —Centrx→talk • 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, if people would stop changing {{afd top}} without telling me, we wouldn't have these problems. Dragons flight 02:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Should it be changed back to [1], which is the last edit before the recent changes starting on July 10?
I can deal with anything of the form "The result of the <word> was", let it be nomination, discussion, debate, whatever, but using "The result was" will require me to tweak the code. Dragons flight 04:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:Deletion Review

As mentioned before, I love your afd summary pages. Excellent work. Furthermore, have you ever considered adding summaries for articles that are now up for a deletion review? Just a thought. Thanks! OSU80 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New category requested

Might it be possible to add another category with a threshold of 30 votes, perhaps calling it "Very many votes", to identify the super-controversial AfDs? -- ChrisO 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • With the total number of opinions tallied in the first column after the article title, it really doesn't take that long to skim down the "Many votes" pages to find the few that have gotten that high. --Satori Son 00:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entry on the AFD page for this tool is obscure and hard to find

I find this sorting tool useful, but it's not easy to find the link to it on the AFD page:

  • 'summaries of ongoing AFDs'

is not very distinctive. (A person wandering around on the AFD page sees many 'summary-like' things). How about changing it to:

  • 'Open AFD debates sorted to make it easier to contribute'

or some such? EdJohnston 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I incidentally found the link and made my own shortcut to the 'All' part. Once in a while when I have the time, I have a look and follow up on what might appear within my scope for proper judgement while in need of some help in making a decision. Checking an Afd with 20 against 3 votes, would just be a loss of my time. It helped in saving a few articles by improving these during half an hour or so, or by simply giving a counter-argumentation against the nominator's viewpoint. I can only deplore the eagerness of some nominators to put up an article for deletion if it takes probably less time to bring the article to acceptable standards. This page, if followed by other editors on a relatively regular basis, can be a great help in getting enough people with a fair interest and knowledge about the topic and typical problems of an Afd, so as to come to a sound result. So I agree that more contributors should easily find this great tool, though not without ever having read what Afd is about or without having had the experience on WP to become rather well aware of its guidelines and practices. — SomeHuman 26 Jan 2007 17:53 (UTC)

[edit] Parser errors

When the parser encounters one error on a day log, it seems to stop for the entire day ("Fatal Error: Parser Abort"), which is a minor inconvenience for those of us who use this tool in various ways to help close AfDs, if nothing else. What are these errors? Is there any way we can fix them manually so the parser works again? Thanks. --W.marsh 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] great tool

This is nothing short of impressive, but I have two concerns, both of which are specific cases of the issues listed as known bugs:

  • Most of the recent days seem to return "parser error," and
  • the tool seems to be reading "no-delete" or "non-delete" or similar votes as "other" instead of as "keep." Thus, the statistic for Afd/E-wording showed 100% or unopposed deletion when in fact the a manual vote tally shows the count was much closer--5 for deletion (6 if you count the nomination), 3 for no deletion (2 if you count conservatively, as one of the non-deletes reads more like a comment), 5 comment and 4 with no bolded text. Likewise, if someone were hypothetically to write "no delete" (2 words) or "nondelete" (1 word) those should also register as "keep." 69.140.173.15 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems brilliant - noting of course AfD is not a vote but it gives a good overview of what is fgoing on.--Golden Wattle talk 21:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

I suggest that you link the section titles that are days with the corresponding AFD day page... so that 2007 January 8 will link to WP:AFD/Log/2007 January 8. 70.51.9.22 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stats dumps?

Perhaps some periodical dumps of statisics for research purposes would be nice?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DumbBOT

Does this do what your bot does?

This should be part of your AfD sorting, perhaps?

132.205.44.134 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent

Excellent work. When is it going live? (or in an alternate AfD page, at least?)Stellatomailing 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New category

I was wondering if there was a way to have a category what has articles that have been nominated for deletion before? Whispering 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dragons flight/DRV summary

Any chance of seeing a User:Dragons flight/DRV summary any time soon? -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple AfD nominations

I was looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (8th nomination) and thought it would be nice to have a list of articles sorted by number of AfD nominations. I believe those with 8 or more nominations just need some extra research attention to hopefully end the continued AfD nominations. Is it possible to modify the bot to generate a list of AfD's sorted by the number of nominations? -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post August 18th

Is this now suspended? 70.55.87.43 05:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what's the matter? I love this tool--Victor falk 02:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)