Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:General complaints

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the debate was keep Radiant_>|< 23:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:General complaints

The "General Complaints" page is apparently not widely monitored (or even known about), and it seems to duplicate the function of the pages at the "Village Pump". It is confusing for new users to have so many different places to provide feedback about how Wikipedia works. I therefore propose that this page should be deleted (or should redirect to the "Village Pump") on the grounds that it serves no useful purpose. Matt 12:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

I forgot to mention... if the page is deleted then the link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents (which is what originally led me to it) should also be deleted - Matt.

Keep. I regualrly momitor this page and respond to commetns there, as do several other users. in many ways it functions far more like the Help Desk/Reference desk than like the village pump, as sustained discussion threads are rare. It needs to be archived -- I will try to see about doing this shortly. But it serves a useful purpose and should not be deelted, IMO. DES (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I understand that this deletion request emerges from the continuing "too many places to ask for software changes" and I can sympathize with the nominator. However, eliminating one of those places without a contingency for handling where the input to it will go is not a responsible way forward. Consider that the entries on General Complaints fall into several categories on Village Pump and a simple redirect would not be the answer; further, as User:DESiegel points out, the page has some functions that are not redundant with those of the Village Pump pages. Courtland 22:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is my understanding that input by anonymous users in terms of opinions placed in favor or against deletion of pages is ignored as a matter of course. I predict that someone will or will suggest that this AFD entry be deleted on the basis that the nominator is anonymous. I think such action would be unfortunate, but it would also be understandable. Courtland 22:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Since no checks made when you register, and anyone can register under any name, and register and re-register multiple times, I do not see that there is any substantive difference between you signing yourself Courtland and me signing myself "Matt". A policy such as you describe therefore seems ludicrous. In answer to the comments that the content of "General Complaints" has some functions which are not covered by Village Pump, may I suggest that, if the decision is made to keep the page, the distinction is explained both on the page itself and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents (I would do it myself but I do not understand what the difference is). Matt 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette, in particular the passage that states "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." If you think this is ludicrous, take your words to Wikipedia:Deletion reform. Courtland 23:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I did not appreciate that the account must have existed when the nomination was made. That makes more sense to me. Matt 01:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment if it is deleted, it will be necessary to fix up quite a few Help type references as it is described as the place for reporting software defects and requesting enhancements. As a new user I found the overlap a bit confusing, but the General complaints wording was sufficiently explicit that I concluded it was the right place for platform, rather than content or policy comments.
At the moemnt, its main problem is that it seems to be where people get to when they want to complain about content. They use the normal web site process of looking for "Contact Us", and see General complaints as an option. They don't read the tag line and they don't read the intro to the page. I suspect many of them are in fire and forget mode, as that is how you generally have to treat a complaint to a commercial web site, so never see the message telling them to fix the page themselves. --David Woolley 23:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, some people do not appear to read the "not for discussing content" instructions. This is unsurprising. People do not generally tend to read instructions. My remedy for that problem would be to put a big red "STOP" sign on each affected page, such that no-one could possibly miss it, with accompanying text "STOP. Before you post a comment here... etc." However, this is not the reason that I recommended "General Complaints" for deletion. I am talking about non-content-related proposals. I do not understand what criteria one should use to decide whether to post a non-content-related comment, proposal, whinge etc to "General Complaints" or to "Village Pump". Looking at the content of the various pages there is no obvious difference that I can see. Matt 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC).
    • comment That is a problem, and it is one at the help desk, too. But soem people do fix vandalism reported in each spot, even when the reporting person does not. DES (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment On AfD the geernal rule is that votes by users who are not logged in, or who are logged in but have few edits, may be discounted, but anon nominations are not discounted. Thisis mostly to deal with the question of sockpuppets and "meatpuppets" and to a lesser extent to deal with people who have not been around long enough to be reasoanble representatives of the community consensus. I would presume that the same rules apply here. Note that this is always a matter of judgement by the closer. If a non-logged-in (IP) user has a long list of edits that indicate a single consistant user of that IP, then IMO the closer should treat thst user like a logged-in user. DES (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I created this article... and I don't think it's working. This is something I mentioned in the article; see point #99. The things people complain about are either things they can fix themselves and should get up and do, or are the things (like the search engine) that only the highest level programmers can deal with. This article isn't doing anything, and if there's no way to make it useful, then delete it. -Litefantastic 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it is doing something, perhaps not as much as or what you hoped. in many cases we can point people at where or how to do somethign themselves, or where/how to suggest to the developers that soemthing be changed. And in many other cases it serves as a form of vandalism alert. Yes people should lern to fix that themselves, but I'd rather have them reprot it soemwhere where aoemone else might notice and fix it than do nothing. DES (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DES. Xoloz 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because I think some people still use the page, though I wouldn't recommend it. However, I assure you that the nomination is in good faith. I have looked at this anons edits, and participated in discussion with him. What I said may have in encouraged him to make the nomination, in fact. Though I disagree with that step, I don't have any doubt about his motives. Superm401 | Talk 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've given this some thought. WP:GC has several weaknesses; fortunately, only two pages point to it: Wikipedia:Contact us and Help:Contents. So there's room for improvement:
  1. First of all, [[Wikipedia:Specific Complaints]] seems obligatory yet it's missing. Where do I put my specific complaints?  :) Joking aside though, the title itself is bad - to a reader's eye a catch-all for any gripe because WP is not best thing since sliced bread.
  2. It seems resolved complaints eventually go to WP:GC(resolved). This design means that the page becomes top heavy with unresolved complaints. Can this design be improved?
  3. Each wiki page already has a built-in complaints desk, its talk page. (NOTE: I've edited Help:Contents#Asking_questions to send people to Talk pages. Can someone improve the text I wrote, please? Maybe somehow invite the reader to fix the page herself?)
  4. Wikipedia:Contact us says, "If you would like to suggest improvements to the site's design or to the encyclopedia, you can leave a comment at the General Complaints page." See the conflict? My vote is to Rename to Wikipedia:General Comments. One bonus of this is that comments, by definition, require no replies.
  5. An anecdote: What do you do, DES? Oh I regularly monitor this website's General Complaints page. That must be tough. How much do you get paid for it? Oh I volunteered for it. Huh, but at least do you get to suggest changes or improvements to the website? For the developer-side stuff, no. Actually for typos and such, I make the changes myself. Oh, they let you do that, that must be cool. The thing is, EVERYBODY can fix the typos themselves. Yeah, but of course, they'd rather file a complaint than to learn how. Right. :)
  6. Final comment: IMO, anything on any website that says "Help:Contact Us:General <whatever>" or "Help:Ask a Question:General <whatever>" becomes the default webmaster@domainname.com, that is, the default bucket for all site-related communications. And when you show a "click here to leave a <whatever>" on this page — no matter how enormous the red READ THIS FIRST or READ THE FAQ FIRST stop signs put there — it's the same thing. Let's face it.
Thank you for listening. -- Perfecto Canada 03:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's also used in Template:HD header and therefore on the Wikipedia:Help desk page. --David Woolley 11:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
See, each page pointing to it describes GC differently. -- Perfecto Canada 17:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Coincidently I noticed that WP:GC wasn't getting enough attention and put this notice in the Help desk talk, even before this MfD. The Village pump (with its abstract name and specific sections) is too daunting for new users (I can elaborate if needed), so they find themselves at General complaints. I have helped a confused, frustrated user who was inadvently blocked. I have explained why there are so many US places pop up when you use the random article feature. I have directed people to talk pages or the Reference desk. General complaints is useful for new users and so should remain.--Commander Keane 16:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with soem of User:Perfecto's comments on how GC, if kept, needs to be improved. We need an "old but unresolved" archive page, for example. The wording and position of the links to GC probaly also need improments. However I have been alerted to situations in need of attention throgh GC, and i have (I think) been able to help some people become useful contributors here via GC. People who leave fire&forget comemtns about basic policies clearly can't be helped much. DES (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems useful. Needs to be advertized better, with some modifications to how it's run, etc., per above. -- SCZenz 01:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, it seems only to be generating issues that belong somewhere else, and/or a place for people to post nonsense. Stifle 15:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The new headers directing people to specific locations for specific comments will hopefully make a difference. What will really make a difference is if it is better known about by regulars - I only found it by chance in an anon-user's contributions list, whereas it seems very easy to find for people with a gripe. Perhaps a link from wp:an and the admin reading list would help? If in a couple of months the headers haven't made a difference and its still mostly people syaing "somebody posted a rude word in an article, but I'm not going to tell you which one" then we can revisit the issue and come up with an alternative. Thryduulf 01:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I do not regularly monitor the page, I do respond sometimes to people when I see it pop up on Recent Changes. I think it is a useful page; possibly it could be advertised better, as another post above notes. Antandrus (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Should be kept once it is easier to access the page. Many newbies to Wikipedia still put their complaints, showing the importance of this page. DaGizza Chat (c) 05:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • RENAME General Complaints gives an impression to new users that you complain about anything here. A better name would be Suggestions for Improving Wikipedia DaGizza Chat (c) 00:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is redundant with Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), and it appears to be some sort of troll magnet.  Denelson83  07:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not independently viable. Overlap with many other pages. JFW | T@lk 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. Radiant_>|< 11:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The page is a mess, with nobody reading the message at the top of the page. Very few of the entries even belong the page. Most are vandalism reports and content issues. Evil Monkey - Hello 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some people want to log their reactions quckly without having to navigate Village Pump. The "general complaints" or "suggestion box" concept could be a valuable communication tool for people who might not want to enter Village Pump for whatever reasons. For example, I found a bug in wikipedia. Why not drop it in "general complaints?" Rtdrury (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Because apparently nobody who is ever going to do anything about it looks at that page. They only look at that "Bugzilla" thing, or so I'm led to believe... Matt 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
      • The developers do not msotly monitor the GC page, no. But they do want a point to a discussion of an issue on the wiki to make sure that ther is more than one or two people intersted in a change. I have on more than one occasion logged a bugzilla entry based on issues that I saw rasied on the GC page, or started a longer discussion at the pump, or both. DES (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair point, but we already have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bug_report for this. Matt 21:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment. I've just replaced GC's notice to read It is not intended for reporting errors inside specific articles. I believe I found the reason we continue to receive vandalism reports and content issues to GC. It's back at Wikipedia:Contact Us, a protected page. It says, For suggesting an improvement to the encyclopedia or site design, see General Complaints. A user finds a vandalism or bad content, clicks "Contact Us" on the left, reads (only) the topmost section of Wikipedia:Contact Us and clicks immediately to the GC page. I hope my edit improves the situation, though will someone please rephrase the Contact Us page? -- Perfecto Canada 05:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
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.