User talk:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Deletion warnings
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
Comment: If an article looks bogus or unsourced altogether, it is not a speedy--unless it reaches the level of blatant vandalism. Therefore your discussion properly concerns only prod. OI agree with you there about notifying the author and offering some practical assistance-- and a recorded warning. Perhaps this can best be done by using a more specific template than the current prod template, and requiring or completely automating the notification. What would also be needed is an insistence on using more explanatory reasons for the prod.
-
- I do a good deal of prod patrol, and I ask people giving just generalities to be more specific. If they're new at it, they learn. If they're established in their ways, they ignore me. Possibly instead one should just remove the prod tag as improperly formed as a matter of course. (I already do this as common sense if there is no reason at all), DGG (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a paragraph and a quote to try to bring out this point ... you may remember my epiphany when I saw your point of view and changed my attitude ... I copied that quote to a sandbox so that I could use it in the essay, and then forgot to add it! :-) Happy Editing! —68.239.76.49 (talk · contribs) 02:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More specific templates for PRODs
Regarding your comment about "a more specific template" for PRODs, I have created protocols for common speedy categories with the idea to PROD as an alternative to a speedy, which is why the 3rd step is "Put either {{prod}} or {{db}} on the article's Main page", e.g., for the 3rd Step on the Warn-inc protocol, it says:
{{subst:prod|Article lacks sufficient [[WP:Attribution|]] for
[[WP:Verifiability|]] of the [[WP:CORP]] notability criteria}}
... or ...
{{db-inc}}
The idea is that instead of a CSD with the concern:
It is an article about a company or corporation that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)
do a PROD with the reason:
Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:CORP notability criteria
This is not a sufficient reason for a speedy delete, but the PROD raises a flag and allows a five-day "grace period" to find sources and make other improvements ... they both say essentially the same thing (both link to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), with the difference being in "assert" versus "Attribution" ... I favor PRODs over speedy deletions now, and I hope that the current versions of the protocols reflect this attitude.
Happy Editing! —68.239.76.49 12:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
They ought perhaps to at least to be modified to require some sort of more specific reason. In screening Prods people need to be able to at least get some hint whatthe article is about, or it does not serve its role in attracting recognition, eg article about a X that does not show.... DGG (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A few comments
Howdy, I had a few comments on this draft (the most current at writing).
- I think the overall goal is a great one; too often we tend to be abrupt with the very people who are creating content for Wikipedia. Anything we can do to make the deletion of their page (if that is what must be done) should be done.
- Having said that, it may be better to devise a solution which is more through. This one, I think, tends to increase the work for deletions (which do get backlogged with fair frequency, and backlogs lead to hasty decisions--the worst possible outcome). If we emphasize using prod or afd, it increases the number of editors who must be involved and thus draws people away from work, and in some cases, counting on a single editor to come back after several days to check up on the article (which seems unreasonable because (a) they have to remember and (b) people would not want to mark pages for deletion if they don't have a clear schedule in five days).
- Twinkle and similar tools can give Speedy deletion warnings (nearly) simultaneously with putting a speedy notice on the page.
- Steps 8, 9 and 10 are giving the admins too much credit. In removing a prod, an admin is not performing an administrative task, so should be treated as any other editor. Prods can also be removed by the author, just as if it were removed by any other editor. In short, there should only be step 10.
I suppose the general comment I have is that there are really two goals here. (A) treat new users as well as we can, even when they don't fully understand the pages and pages of policy and (b) make sure that reasonable content or starts of an article which will become useful content are not deleted prematurely. Both are areas where Wikipedia perhaps needs improvement. For the former goal, the template {{warn-editor}} is a step in the right direction (but can probably be improved upon). For the latter goal, the issue I think is content being tagged within minutes of being created (when, presumably, the editor is still may be trying to add material). Perhaps a more complete overhaul of the deletions process is needed to accomplish this second objective while maintaining an efficient and streamlined process. It may be worth thinking about what that might be. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been going back and trying to place PROD before CSD as the recommended choices, e.g., ... as for the emphasis on admin behavior in those later steps, this is New Information (Thnx!) and I'll have to cogitate on it for a while ... Happy Editing! —72.75.79.128 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- OK, I agree and have zapped steps 8 & 9. :-) —72.75.79.128 (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Addressing Point #2
OK, I've had a chance to do some thinking, and would like to respond to the second enumerated item above:
… and in some cases, counting on a single editor to come back after several days to check up on the article (which seems unreasonable because (a) they have to remember and (b) people would not want to mark pages for deletion if they don't have a clear schedule in five days).
Well, I guess I use a watchlist to remind me … an article either goes redlink after a few days, or else my local cache expires and the article's link reverts from the "visited" color to the default blue … that's been a sufficient reminder for me, and when I decide to MOVE ON, I just delete it from the watchlist.
As for the "single editor" argument, I guess I'm relying on the paradigm shift from a single Big Brother to millions of Little Brothers, and whether or not an article comes up on Some Other Editor's radar as well … again, the idea is that it's on more than one watchlist, but if you're the only one with any interest in the article, and you don't care enough to WP:AfD, then MOVE ON.
It also reminded me of something that another editor observed: There are two kinds of deletion candidates … the ones that Just Don't Belong and the ones that are merely "damaged" and can be repaired if given some time and attention.
One goal of the protocol is to raise a flag to attract the attention of other editors to a potential problem … this is entirely different from the kind of article for which tools like Twinkle are more appropriate, i.e., the "Kill it before it grows" kind of article that does not deserve courtesy notification/warnings, or a "cooling off" period.
The automated addition of a warning on an editor's talk page when the CSD is placed on the article is exactly the kind of thing that would streamline this protocol, but each editor must first make the choice, "Should I give it more time, or is it beyond redemption?" … after that, they can either use an automated tool to zap it, or take some time and manually tag two talk pages with {{Warn-editor}} and {{Warn-article}}, two Very Easy template names to remember ... in either case, next they MOVE ON. :-)
The point is, I don't want to remember an article … I'd rather flag it and MOVE ON … I might come back later and do some WikiGnome cosmetics, or raise a newbie editor's consciousness about WP:COI, WP:BLP, or WP:LINKSPAM issues … sometimes I'll bring one to the attention of an admin or Some Other Editor.
This protocol also provides a "paper trail" that doesn't get lost when an article is deleted, so it's easier to document the recreation of previously deleted articles by the same editors or their WP:SOCKs, e.g. I recently went through the process with
See User_talk:Oysterguitarist#Jun_Mapili and User talk:TeaDrinker#Jun Mapili for the involvement of yourself and Some Other Editor … should it reappear, there's some history that can be referenced … Happy Editing! —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some afterthoughts … I envision two types of editors; the ones who look for garbage and vandalism to delete ASAP, and the WP:GNOMEs who drift around the same "virgin" articles and "add lipstick to a pig" in an attempt to raise the consciousness of nuggets about how we do things here … sometimes, a single editor will alternate between modes for a few days … I guess I'm envisioning this variety in focus to keep enough eyes on a situation, or else they'll just MOVE ON after a while because they have no complaints about its Notability and encyclopedic tone, with good reliable sources.
- OTOH, this user is a recent example of using
{{Warn-editor}}on an article with recurring WP:LINKSPAM problems; two other editors were involved, and the closing admin left a follow-up message, as per the suggestion in the message left on the article's discussion page with the{{Warn-article}}template.
- And the two templates also come in handy as "bookmarks" if you suspect WP:COI or WP:COPYVIO issues … BTW, my IP address just changed again. :-) Happy Editing! —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Swapping 1st and 2nd Steps
Well, experience has taught me that more often than not, it's a better idea to tag the article first and the editor second, so I have swapped the first two steps, and will be tracking down and correcting all instances in other protocols. <Heavy Sigh!> —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Second opinions
My thnx to Thinboy00 for suggesting some velvet for the glove ... try to find an impartial 2nd opinion when you tag an article for deletion, especially on a PROD ... a {{Prod-2}} would indicate another DELETE opinion at an AfD, should the PROD be declined ... if they decline the PROD or CSD, then perhaps it is a sign that you should MOVE ON ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 06:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
