User:Kuzaar/UsefulThings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This section describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases.

Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III.


To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:

I.
Put the deletion tag on the article.

Insert the {{subst:afd1}} tag at the top of the article if it's the article's first AfD nomination, if the article has been nominated for deletion before use {{subst:afdx}} instead.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the AfD tag is removed by a vandal or a new user unfamiliar with deletion policy.
  • Save the page.
II.
Create the article's deletion discussion page.

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page.

  • Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page. Some preloaded text and some instructions will appear.
  • Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions will be on the page).

OR

  • Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page.
  • Insert this text:
    {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion, Category with a letter indicating the category of the debate, and Reason... with the reasons you think the page should be deleted.

If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.).

  • Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Notify users who monitor AfD discussion.

Open the articles for deletion log page. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:

{{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}}

replacing PageName appropriately.

  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.

If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.).

  • Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}.

To list multiple related pages for deletion see this page.


Once listed, deletion discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries; which helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the list of categories.

[edit] Evolution

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contribution to the Evolution page. We realise that evolution is a controversial topic in the United States and in some other places in the world.

Many of the arguments presented by proponents of creationism or intelligent design have been presented to this page repeatedly. Generally, these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of evolution and/or lack any supporting sources. For that reason, please consider the following:

  • Evolution is not a random process. Mutations are random, natural selection is not.
  • A supposed 'gap' in the evolution theory is not equivalent to rebuttal of the theory and evolutionary theory does not predict the existence of intermediate forms between all forms of life (cat-dog/bird-fish etc.)
  • The word theory in science indicates a well studied and supported explanation for a given set of usually undisputed observations.
    • Consider that any scientist capable of disproving evolution would be assured of fame and fortune.
  • We are still looking for the many scientists that supposedly support creationism or intelligent design.
  • In general, back up claims that substantially change the content of the article with reliable and verifiable sources.

For common responses to creationist arguments please see TalkOrigins. Feel free to start a discussion on something that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources, but if you wish to discuss or debate the general validity of evolution please do so at Talk.Origins, because Wikipedia is not a discussion board. Thank you.

[edit] An old timer writes

Hi Daniel, It's been a long time since I used to hang out at alt.quotations. Hope you're keeping well. Anyway, with respect to the inclusionist/deletionist thing, I try not to take sides. Taking sides tend to stop things being fun, as collaboration becomes confrontation. I guess by 2006 standards I'm a deletionist. There's too much popular culture in wikipedia, too many fundamentally uninteresting schools, too much stuff, and not enough insight into stuff. (Now don't get me wrong: I adore popular culture, but one of the things I like about it is its ephemerality). The real problem is that too many people can't make your distinction between information and knowledge. I don't know what should be in an online encyclopedia, but I'm fairly certain its not 4,000 word plot summaries of every episode of Doctor Who ever made. 1,000 words on each series, seems more reasonable. There's too much agglomeration of facts, and not enough precis.

The motto "Wikipedia is not paper" has become the enemy of conciseness. There's a peculiar idea that we should cover everything we can in as much detail as (meta)physically possible, enumerating every fact about a subject, with no regard as to which are actually important and which aren't.

But those battles have been lost, and I've lost the will to fight the remaining battles using anything but mild sarcasm on AfD (again, I simply don't find being a volunteer bureaucrat a lot of fun).

The odd thing is, back in the day I was an inclusionist. I got into an edit war with Larry Sanger for slipping a mention of the Sex Pistols into the God Save The Queen article.

The other thing that bothers me is the general standard of prose styling. Not spelling and grammar (though those are frequently dreadful), but the fact that, in the rush to keep adding facts to an article, no-one seems to be interested in writing good sentences, or putting those sentences in an order that produces lucid prose.

OK, I'm rambling now.

Gareth.