Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

See also: Wikipedia utilities/Old Page titles to be deleted talk and Wikipedia:Utilities

Please see my comment in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages. — Toby 03:21 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

I notice that Magnus puts new votes at the top of the page. Perhaps he doesn't realise that we expect them at the bottom, since the software that he wrote originally placed automatic links there. Or perhaps he is sending us subtle hints that the top would be better. Well, I can see some merit in that. ¿What do people think?; ¿should we switch the order here? (and presumably on the other, less used, vote pages). — Toby 01:26 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)

I generelly prefer logs like this to accumulate at the top. I also think things like lists of annual awards should be be chronological starting with the present and working backward (Wikipedia is inconsistent about that). If I ever get around to adding a feature to nominate articles for deletion, I'll probably add them to a list at the top, just like the deletion log and upload log (and I'll probably call it "deletion request log", because it has nothing at all to do with voting on anything). --LDC

I prefer to put new stuff at the bottom, since I read from the top down. This depends, however, on the page being short enough to load quickly. I'm much happier seeing a page like Wikipedia:Deletion log going backwards, since it can get long and is automatically generated by a fixed template. This page, however, with its many interspersed comments, needs a more straightforward chronology. Well, that's my $0.02; I can work with either way. — Toby 05:52 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)

Everyone reads from the top down! That's precisely why some people want new additions at the top - so that they can see them as soon as they load up the page, without having to scroll right down to the bottom of a long list. I have no strong views on this matter myself, although I do strongly support the idea that chronological lists of awards etc. should go forward in time down the page, as is done in almost all such lists everywhere else! -- Oliver Pereira 08:12 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

The article Arts and Crafts Movement is a substantial topic which could be expanded to make a nice article. What is there is only a tiny part of what could be included. User:Fredbauder

What was there was, in fact, completely irrelevant to the actual subject. I've used Ortolan's material on why not to delete it as the basis of a stub. Much more is, indeed, needed. Vicki Rosenzweig

--- Now that we have the stub-marking capacity, we don't need to delete stubs that may in the future become good articles, no? --The Cunctator

That's absurd. If there is no information on the page then it is far more informative to have an edit link. Besides this is a non-standard option. --mav

It's not far more informative to have an edit link. In fact, the edit link is the equivalent of a stub threshhold set to 1 character, without the added information that someone has edited the entry before.

It's not absurd. I can respect your disagreement, however, especially if you understand my argument. --The Cunctator

The article says: "(or use the Vote feature)": what is it? olivier 11:24 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

Time ago, there was an option in the menu bar, "vote this page". This led to a form by which you could directly add the page you were reading to one of the voting pages, with a comment. You could choose to vote for NPOV, for rewrite, for brilliant prose and for deletion.

This feature has been removed, I think for technical reasons, but this page (votes for deletion) was perhaps the most useful one, so it survived in manual use. BTW, other pages are still available at

Wikipedia:Votes for NPOVing

Wikipedia:Votes for rewrite

Wikipedia:Votes for wikification

Wikipedia:Votes for article-of-the-day

--Gianfranco

"Also, check the What links here link. Many entries that seem not to belong in an encyclopedia are linked from Sep 11, 2001 related pages."

This is stated, but not explained. What relevance does "Sep 11" have to the suitability of articles to an encyclopaedia? If there is a page explaining this somewhere, could someone link to it? Thanks. -- Oliver Pereira 08:12 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

It has already been decided that many of the 9/11 pages should be moved out of the encyclopedia to the newly created http://sep11.wikipedia.org We just haven't got around to doing it yet. --mav

Thanks for the explanation! Of course, since Wikipedia is neutral and all that, I look forward to a similar Wikipedia subproject for the victims of the subsequent bombing of Afghanistan... -- Oliver Pereira 10:01 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

If anyone's actually serious about doing that rather than just using people's deaths as the butt of sarcasm, I'll be more than happy to set up a blank wiki for it. --Brion 10:17 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

I was actually making a serious point about neutrality (albeit with just a hint of sarcasm), and I genuinely would like to see a site dedicated to the victims of the bombing in Afghanistan, or indeed anywhere else. I don't have much personal knowledge in the area myself, but I would find it interesting if people who knew more about Afghanistan were to build such a project! -- Oliver Pereira 10:30 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

If anyone remembers, I suggested the Sep11 wiki be morphed into a general "victims of war and terrorism" memorial. -- Tarquin

Aha! I vote for that idea, then. I don't remember that, as I'm new round here. (I might add that line to everything I write from now on, so that I can be excused from everything I do... ;) -- Oliver Pereira 10:49 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

I agree and have suggested the same thing myself. How about this; memorial.wikipedia.org. I wonder why Brion created such a specific url when there were several suggestions that such a site should not be exclusive to 9/11. No biggie right now and sep11.wikipedia.org can and should always point to the 9/11 In Memoriam page. A general Main Page can be made later after the primary url is changed to something more inclusive (piped namespaces can be used for disambiguation if need be). --mav

I can't believe that after all that discussion, The Cunctator just deleted the paragraph under discussion! I don't think someone should delete a clarificatory paragraph if other people feel it is necessary; certainly not without discussing it first! There are a lot of "Sep 11"-related articles (e.g. biographies of victims) that look a little out of place in an encyclopaedia, and as mav said, the articles haven't been moved yet. So I think it is worthwhile to keep a note to this effect on the "Votes for deletion" page so that people don't complain about them. -- Oliver Pereira 20:33 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

Give an example of such an article.

Noone has put a Sep.11-related page on Votes for Deletion in quite some time.

Mav's use of the passive voice ("It has been decided...") is inappropriate. It's simply not true. --The Cunctator

I don't get your problem. I gather that you want the "Sep 11" pages to remain, and yet you repeatedly delete a paragraph which tells people not to nominate the pages for deletion. What do you gain by doing this?

As for giving examples of pages, I gave a whole set in my message above. To repeat: "There are a lot of 'Sep 11'-related articles (e.g. biographies of victims) that look a little out of place in an encyclopaedia."

Biographical entries in an encyclopaedia (which seems to be the standard view of what the Wikipedia is striving to be) traditionally describe people who are famous or worthy of note in some field of endeavour. While I am in no way trying to denigrate the worth of the victims' lives, I can't see how most of them fit the traditional criteria for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I for one thought their inclusion was odd, until I heard about this memorial site (which of course I fully approve of, especially if it were to be upgraded into Tarquin's more neutral "victims of war and terrorism" memorial).

I hasten to add that saying that their inclusion seemed ";odd", and not "traditional", doesn't mean that I am against their inclusion. After all, I only discovered the Wikipedia nine days ago, and I found the whole thing odd and untraditional! Now that I've become more used to the Wikipedia, I can see that it has the potential to be a lot bigger than a traditional encyclopaedia, and so can contain a lot that traditional encyclopaedias leave out. But I still think it's likely that other people will have similar thoughts to my initial ones about the "oddness" of the victims' biographies, and they may well nominate them for deletion. (You yourself once wrote that the material "stretches the bounds of the Wikipedia mission".)

It is an undisputed fact that a new memorial site has been set up. It is here. Whether the victims' pages are to be moved to that site or merely linked to from that site may be disputed. But it's not really relevant. Either way, it has been decided that the pages are not to be deleted, yes? So why not have a paragraph on the "Votes for deletion" page saying this? If the paragraph is slightly misleading, reword it. There is no reason to axe it altogether, as far as I can see.

As for other people not putting "Sep 11"-related articles on "Votes for deletion" for some time, perhaps this is partly because they believed that what mav said had been agreed had, in fact, been agreed.

I know I've waffled on for quite some time here, but I'm trying to present logical arguments, rather than just getting into an edit war. If you have any logical arguments as to why a short and simple clarificatory paragraph is somehow a Bad Thing to have, please do present them. -- Oliver Pereira

I agree. No more reason to have an article for somebody just because they die in a noteworthy attack, than an article for each of the other 50,000-100,000 (I guess) people who die every day.

You have a point, but that's not actually what I was saying, so I'm not sure why you started with "I agree"...! -- Oliver Pereira 18:27 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand your concern better. You were confused by their inclusion, and found the explanation of their inclusion on this page helpful. My concern (which may be overweighted) is that I don't want the victim pages to be considered a special exception.

Some of these issues of the nature of Wikipedia have been discussed at m:Wiki is not paper and other places. It probably should be incorporated into Wikipedia:What is an article or the FAQ. Discussing it on Votes for deletion isn't quite the right place.

I would like it if you could give a specific example for us to deal with, too. --The Cunctator

Thanks for the reply. Yes, you pretty much understand what my concern was. I do see that treating certain pages as special cases would be controversial, so perhaps it would be best not to do so. I think people might find it helpful if there was a list of common deletion disputes, with a link to a page on what has been concluded from them. This would save going through the disputes again and again.

As for giving a specific example of something to be dealt with, I don't have one, as I was just speaking generally.

My other concern was that I don't like the idea of someone deleting a paragraph that someone else has only just edited, unless it is complete garbage. It could easily offend the person who has just edited the paragraph, and could very easily lead to edit wars. I think that rewording a paragraph to remove any factual inaccuracies would be more diplomatic than just jumping in and saying, "This is wrong. I'm deleting it." -- Oliver Pereira 17:30 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

The first sentence of Votes for deletion says,

Add links to stupid, incorrect, or otherwise unwanted page titles to the list below...

I think that "stupid" and "incorrect" should be removed, leaving it simply "Add links to unwanted page titles." The current wording is a little misleading, since deleting pages that are "incorrect" is not the general method of correcting errors. Any objections? -- Stephen Gilbert 03:31 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

No objection from me. Be bold! --mav

Of course, "unwanted" is just as bad a guide. --The Cunctator

Not so, when combined with the request to consult the policy page. It may not be an ideal guide, but it's better than "stupid" and "incorrect". -- Stephen Gilbert 00:36 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry for being particularly dense, but I can't mentally parse this block of text:

If the content of a page-to-be-deleted exists on some different page, please indicate that, somehow, on the page-to-be-deleted (either by redirecting it to the correctly titled page, or, better for our purposes, putting in a link to it). To facilitate checking that a "page title to be deleted" really ought to be deleted, please don't redirect such pages to page titles to be deleted.

Can anyone tell me what it's talking about? -- Stephen Gilbert 00:46 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

Links to international versions of the page are all pointing to versions of the Fifth World topic. Please, some admin restore correct links --G

Is there one of our subtler vandals at work? The outside link What is the 5th World recently appeared at Micronation. That site has a certain attitude about Wikipedia. My first impression was that there was a minor problem with terminology on one article. Gianfranco's bears further investigation. Eclecticology 07:21 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

The Wikipedia deliberately chose to cultivate only the Navajo legends, and the past, and leave our neotribal realities, and the present, behind. Right. It's time Tallini either explains what he's doing here, or gets banned. -- Zoe

I don't see how disagreement is grounds to ban somebody. Vera Cruz

I'm beginning to wonder of Vera Cruz and Tallini are the same person. -- Zoe

I'm beginning to lose a lot of respect for Zoe. Vera Cruz

The problem made worse by an apparent bug. When somebody entered the inter language links on the to be deleted list, instead of showing them where one would expect the software treated them as real interlanguage links and put them at the top of the article. These votes for deletion likely should have been entered on the separate Wikipedias for each of the languages involved. I've nowikied them, but somebody with sysop status on each of thes will have to do the deleting. Eclecticology 08:31 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

On the it.wiki I translated the current version of Fifth World (see) - I'd rather need someone to delete nothing less than the 14 Commandments, a good attempt to enlarge our visions about patience...

Sorry, I hadn't found intl. links in the article so I thought they were sysop reserved - you know, you can't check history for this page ;-) --G

How long after deletion of a page should the "vote" here be removed? Immediately? 1 day? 1 week? -- SGBailey 09:41 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

No fixed rule has been agreed upon yet. For a simple newbie's experiment I usually remove the entry immediately after deleting. If there was some debate prior to the deletion I usually remove the entry after about a week. -- JeLuF 19:33 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

I am interested to see that Vera Cruz is now in charge of this page, and has the power to completely delete a section of debate - the Fifth World stuff - claim it's a non-issue, and mark the deletion minor. I have restored the missing text, and would ask that people consider following proper procedures more carefully. This looks like an attempt at sleight of hand and should not go unremarked. 194.117.133.118 09:10 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Vera Cruz annoyingly marks every edit as minor and Fifth World is now a decent stub. I'm willing to assume that the removal of Jp:Fifth World was a mistake. --mav 09:21 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what a help it would have been if the edit had not been marked as minor, and the Summary field had been used to explain the reason for the deletion. "Non-issue" tells us nothing, but "now a decent stub" would have been informative. 194.117.133.118 09:50 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

I agree. --mav

Vera Cruz is probably Lir, the editing style is the same, they have edited many of the same pages, Vera Cruz appeared a few days after Lir was banned, even the homepage with all the minor edits being carefully listed looks the same. --Eloquence

I'm getting tired of these Lir "sightings". Can we give people the benefit of the doubt? You are a developer so you can find out for sure. Just compare the IPs that Vera Cruz uses with the IPs Lir used. --mav

No, I can't check the IP, I do not have access to any server logs, nor sysop rights, only CVS access. Check the facts and you will see I'm right, mav. --Eloquence

If you really think so then ask Brion about it. He did a check on another user in record time. IMO VC is is far too reasonable polite, and until very recently newbish to be Lir. --mav

I don't really care either way. Just don't say I didn't tell you so when this comes up again. --Eloquence

So Tallini is Lir? Vera Cruz

No, you are. -- Zoe

Cunctator, what is your authorization to move items off of this page? -- Zoe

alphabetization is an art... Vera Cruz

moved discussion:

I would like to remind folks who actually delete a page to remove the request entry on this page. This will keep the length of this page manageable. Thanks! David

The entry should stay for a little time to document the discussion leading to the deletion. -- JeLuF 20:11 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Of course, that is true. However, look at the length of this page! It makes no sense. If most of these pages have been deleted, the corresponding entries on this page should be deleted. But the world doesn't always work in the way that I think is obvious. David 17:21 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the confusing paragraph:

Can we rephrase whatever this is trying to say? -- sannse 16:45 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I searched all over the place, but I could not find an appropriate place to put this. I have a request to block an IP. 4.18.224.162 has visited Wikipedia on two separate occassions and deleted information and posting graffiti. Kingturtle 01:51 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

try wikipedia:vandalism in progress, but only as a last resort... Martin

Could we reduce or remove that large block of text at the top of the page that explains how to use this page? Perhaps with its own page and a link there? This page gets large enough as it is, and for some browsers, it's hard to edit. -- Zoe

could somebody please clean up the votes for deletion page to avoid me unvolontarily deleting the end of it when I edit it please ? Anthere

Proposed reorganization

Create a Wikipedia:Suspected copyright material page to list copyright violations.
I'd also like to remove "Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made." - in some cases a page is obvious junk "my cat's name is mittens" for example. Something like that can be deleted right away, IMO -- Tarquin 12:16 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin, I was about to suggest that we split it a different way. Lots of pages are really obvious junk and don't need to be discussed or pondered. All that is needed is for someone with delete rights to be made aware of them - i.e., page where JoeUser can let the next admin who looks at it know that Silly page with content "ku8746853474#&%$&^(6" exists. It might be called Wikipedia:Trivial deletions or something like that. Tannin

I think we should follow reverse linking for deleting pages. IE, to delete a page, just link from it to wikipedia:ConsiderPageDeletion. Reasons for deletion go on the talk page. Then sysops go to wikipedia:ConsiderPageDeletion, click "what links here", review the talk, and (if appropriate) delete the page. Similarly for images, although the discussion can go directly on the image description page normally.

An alternative way would be to split up images, main namespace articles, pages in the wikipedia: or talk: namespaces. Stuff in the user: namespace already goes elsewhere. While sometimes a page might be listed on votes for deletion for both possible copyright and other reasons, everyone can tell the difference between an image and a talk page... :) Martin

Is there no way that such images can be deleted automatically? It seems to me that if an image is changed from a .jpg to a .png with an otherwise identical file name, then there isn't really any need for a vote or a human to make a judgement. Can the software be ammended? Theresa knott 13:15 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

You could replace the software in Martin's brain, allowing him to delete images without being so overcautious. That would do the trick, I think. He is a sysop, after all. ;) -- Tim Starling 13:26 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

However, in some cases there might still be pages that use the old picture, and a less diligent user may not update every page that uses it. Perhaps it could automatically redirect to the PNG? I don't know how well/easily that would work. -- John Owens 16:36 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

My overcaution is a product of seeing what happens when sysops on other websites abuse their powers. I'm happy to be bold when I'm doing stuff that anyone can do - but I am always going to be cautious when making use of godly powers. After all, you don't need to be evil to do evil things... Martin 01:45 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

It's a fair point you make. Better to be too cautious than not cautious enough. Anyway I am not a sysop, yet I might want to change a jpeg to a png. At the moment i have to put the jpeg on this page to get rid of it. I note that bmp images are now being discussed on votes for deletion. It would be nice if anyone could just update these to jpeg or png without having to go through votes for deletion to get rid of the bloatfile. Theresa knott 07:52 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Village Pump

Could a sysop please deleted some of the articles at the top of Votes for deletion page, and decrease the size of this page. I cannot edit that page without erasing the bottom, most recent comments. Thanks User:anthere

I suggested a while ago that we split that page into a) suspected copyright violations, which we leave for a week before deleting, and b) all the other junk. Not that many people were in favour at the time, and I can't remember where the discussion was -- Tarquin 09:47 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Also, the top of that page is very long and detailed. Why not condensing that info, and put all the details in a separate page ? ant

We already have done! See Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages. Martin

As for deleting some of the pages at the top: we have a policy of leaving them there for a week before deletion. I could probably remove some of the resolved entries, but when there's little discussion on an entry it's hard to judge the consensus. I think Tarquin's idea of splitting off suspected copyright violations is a great idea. The intro could probably be reduced: it takes up about 2KB at the moment. -- Tim Starling 11:21 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to make a suggestion. Currently the policy at the top says that we shouldn't list:

pages that can easily and sensibly be redirected to another page.

Perhaps it should be changed to :

DO NOT LIST PAGES THAT CAN EASILY AND SENSIBLY BE REDIRECTED TO ANOTHER PAGE.

or something like that because people don't seem to be geting the message. -- Tim Starling 00:45 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Heh. Guilty. I've redirected (and removed from the page) one of the things I put up, but can't think of a sensible redirect for the others... -- Evercat 01:11 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Also, I realise now that I've probably been over-zealous in listing garbage new pages here. I guess just blanking them and letting an op spot them is good enough, no need to list here? -- Evercat 02:17 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, because

WATCH OUT AT WHAT MAY BE CALLED SENSIBLY

I think garbage pages should be listed here. There's no official policy as far as I know, but if you don't list them they could easily fall through the cracks. However, it's probably a good idea to leave them for 20 minutes or so before you list them, because there's often a sysop or two hanging around, deleting pages in batches. -- Tim Starling 02:28 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I've been thinking that perhaps we could split this up into more than the so-far suggested two pages, one for copyright and one for everything else, and add one for the obviously worthless kind of stuff that you're talking about. I think that would be about as far as it should go though, we don't want to end up with 37 pages to check to find whether an article is already nominated or not, after all. -- John Owens 05:56 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

That pink bit above was added by Anthere. Anthere, do you mean "watch out for articles that can [should?] be named sensibly"? What do you mean exactly? -- Tim Starling

well...pink is a nice color, right ?
In short, when someone takes the time to try to broaden a topic which is little treated on Wikipedia, add some links to fill, and find all these links, by dozens, redirected to only a couple of very broad articles, it is not necessarily seen as sensible. I fail to see how Food quality, Sustainable agriculture, Food and agricultural policy, Over-grazing, Farming practices, Integrated fertilizer management, Conservation agriculture, Integrated pest management, Farming system and intensive agriculture - all of them redirecting to agriculture is sensible. I prefer to see these links empty, than to see them all redirecting to agriculture. Since nobody wanted to delete them, the only place left was to put them here.
Sensible is a touchy matter and judging the interest or opportunity of a redirect is not always easy.

Fair comment. I often see the case where we have a broad article, linking to more specific subfields (which initially do not have articles). Some vandal comes along and writes a silly comment in a subfield article. Then a non-sysop replaces the nonsense with a redirect back to the broad article, thereby creating a self-referential link. Very annoying. But would you agree that we get far too many entries which are eventually removed after being replaced by a redirect? Some recent examples: Quote Schrödinger cat, Greywater, Images of Rachel Corrie, cultivars, Banishing crows from a field, Global Greens web site, General Systems Theory. -- Tim Starling 03:04 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I checked a couple of them, and yes, that is rather true the redirect are quite fairly obvious (except one). Cultivar is a *unique* example :-))).

If I may say however, I disagree with your point on greywater. Fact is, I put it here myself, because it was part of the whole bunch of articles Budda redirected either to recycling or to sewage treatment,. I put greywater because I think I could put...hum...say, at least 30 lines on this one, dealing only with grey water, and making sense to be in this article, and not in another. As things are, I got tired to blank the content of bad redirect these days, and I unilateraly decided that I would specifically do nothing for that grey water article (and a couple of others actually). Redirected it is, redirected it will stay. This could perhaps be called KillingWillingness.

Unfortunate.

Consequently, between my examples, and your examples, I don't see any hard rules to set. Notice yes. You may put the notice (perhaps not that big), in particular with a couple of examples (such as cultivar). And I will go on putting my links. Is that correct ? :-)

User or users from 152.163.18x.xxx have created some articles of dubious relevance: Sarah Marple-Cantrell, Joseph D'Apice, Suneetha Jayaseelan. Kingturtle 02:29 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I deleted those first two, before they were listed here (or at least before I read them here). I didn't delete the last one because I didn't know if she was someone we should know or not. -- Zoe

Uh oh. i may have made a little mistake. i removed a few things from Votes for deletion because i deemed them resolved. then it occured to me that maybe everything is meant to remain there for history's sake. was i right in deleting resolved items? or should all resolved items remain in the meta page? Kingturtle 22:10 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

If they are of general interest they can stay for some time. If they are just about some graffiti they can be deleted immediately. That's the way I handle it usually. If we would like to keep them all, we would have huge pages ... -- JeLuF 22:37 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. I honestly thought today was May 14th. I deleted a few things posted here May 7th. Won't happen again. Kingturtle 22:14 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why is it that I'm required to list every entry that I think should be deleted here, but nobody else is required to follow the rule that they stay here for a week before being deleted? -- Zoe

Consider this a safety rule. Junk pages can be deleted immediately, no matter where they are found. --Eloquence 19:34 19 May 2003 (UTC)

The Cunctator is hardly in a position to lecture Zoe about bilateralism: check out this edit by him. Not to mention the recent complaints on WikiEN-L. -- Tim Starling 00:03 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I am the copyright holder of my essay on levity about Browne. Can i please now continue to polish and edit for wikipedia or not ? Not such a good welcome but i suppose poss. copyright infrigements must be taken seriously. Look and compare author's names before impending me please. Norwikian

See also: Wikipedia utilities/Old Page titles to be deleted talk and Wikipedia:Utilities

some discussion on the "seven days" moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time

A summary of at least some of this archive

The following is a summary of this page over the last month. Wordings have changed, but hopefully the meaning remains. The full text may be seen below

VfD should have a TOC -Someone else. No it shouldn't —Eloquence.
Why don't we create a separate page for posting nonsense pages to delete immediately -Muriel Gottrop. Agree -Jake. See the talk archive -Tim Starling. Try wikipedia:deleted test. -Martin.
There are lots of US surrealism articles in VfD -Daniel C. Boyer. That's because I'd been looking at your contributions -MB.
Stop having edit wars on VfD (anon)
Why were Charles Radcliffe and Dan Georgiakis not deleted? -MB . (Edit summaries and extracts from history for Aug 14 provided by Angela)
A listed for deletion notice ought to be left on the page so the author knows what's going on. Various arguments for and against (see also Wikien mailing list), so the policy is recommended though not enforced.
Still waiting for a meta:deletion management redesign
Blanking or redirecting decided to be unhelpful.
If pages are not deleted, the discussion could be moved from VfD to the page. This should be added to the deletion policy page.
Martin removed the fast track section because sometimes copyvios aren't copyvios.
I think we need to amend deletion policy to include on the list of exceptions: 1) deleting redirects to make way for moves, 2) temporarilly deleting pages to merge page history -Martin
We should put the notice on the talk page -MB. People are lazy -Angela. It doesn't take long -MB. But it won't be seen by as many people -Martin.
Can you still delete if after a week it still has no notice? Angela. Yes —Eloquence. Yes if you think it won't shock the author -Martin. (Angela added a note to the welcoming newbies boilerplate that tells them about undeletion something is deleted and it turns out to be a mistake.)
VfD is too big. You should remove old stuff -Vancouverguy. We do. Try section editing -Angela.
Don't annoy people by putting their stuff on VfD – be more careful what you list -BL. You could put stubs on Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub instead of VfD but that is already overcrowded -Angela.
The links to KRS' Man, matter and magic squares page were removed by Angela on request of KRS.
VfD is too big and section editing doesn't help. Could we have 1 line per item with a link to the talk page of that article, where the discussion would take place? -Hephaestos. Yes -Angela. No, it should be on a new page, like Wikipedia talk:Mickey Harte/Delete debate so as not to get confused with other talk -FearÉIREANN.
The Most Recent Addition heading is there to make it easier to skip to the end -Dante Alighieri.

Unsummarised version follows

Copyvio

discussion on lag time ruthlessly hacked out

Last time it went over 32 KB, Tarquin suggested we split off the copyright violations from everything else. I think that's a great idea. As traffic on this site continues to grow, VFD will inevitably get longer. Splitting is the obvious scalable solution. I'll even go so far as to create a tempting broken link: Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. -- Tim Starling 14:30 25 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good solution. Yet another page to check .. --Eloquence 14:36 25 May 2003 (UTC)

We could just tell everyone using browsers which limit length to 32 KB to get lost ;) [...] Perhaps we need a software solution. -- Tim Starling 14:50 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, having [[Category:Deletion]] on the page, the discusison on the talk page, and the list of pages to be deleted auto-generated from the "what links here" of the category page would probably work best. However, category support is not there yet, so for the time being, we'll have to work with this solution. --Eloquence 14:53 25 May 2003 (UTC)

software solution discussed at meta:deletion management redesign... Martin

[...] The page-size issue has come about because a few discussions have been animated. those discussions should be moved to the discussion page of said article. that should solve the problem. i am going to give it a try. Kingturtle 16:13 25 May 2003 (UTC)

a better solution is for us to be more diligent

Move the cp to another page. These rarely trigger discussion anyway. Ant

page widening

Why is the Votes for Deletion page stretched out all the way across the page so that it overlaps the right margin? -- Zoe

Looks fine on my browser (Mozilla). Maybe it's just a browser issue? Sometimes that happens with really long lines of fixed-width text, but I don't see any of that in there... -- Wapcaplet 01:08 30 May 2003 (UTC)

EDIT: Whoops. Found it! The offending link is Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition, which, since it is indented many times, runs off the right margin. -- Wapcaplet 01:10 30 May 2003 (UTC)

delete test and welcome

Users of this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Delete test and welcome, which I just created following its proposal on the mailing list. Martin 20:27 31 May 2003 (UTC)

cleaning out

We need to clean this out. I will work on it, but it is a bit much for one person. So lets weed through all the stuff that has been here for more than 1 week. If it is agreed to be deleted, delete it (and remove from this page. If not, move the discussion to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive. Thanks. MB 20:46 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

a better option would be to move the discussion to the talk page of the relevant article. Martin 00:36 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

special characters

"Mangled character" problems? I didn't touch the Spearman's Ï? entry on any of my edits. Was my browser somehow converting a character on it's own? Have we discovered a bug? I'm using Opera btw. Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 22:30 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the browser/editor kind of thing, the usual. Anthere always mangles 212's name, Jtdirl's Safari mangles Vangazi, your Opera mangles the Spearman's Ï? (it's not right where you just put it here, either). The joys of browser compatability. :p -- John Owens 22:40 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I wonder why I mess 212 name but not Vangazi ? Btw, thanks for always cleaning behind me John. I will leave a mess in less than 2 hours in wikimoney. :-)User:Anthere

And 142.177.98.227's manages to hit all three of the above, *sigh*.... -- John Owens 22:45 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Neither "Vangazi" or "Spearman's Ï?" are valid ISO-88519-1. The former is, as far as I can tell, Windows-1252, while the latter is probably supposed to be UTF-8. This site should switch to UTF-8 and those problems would not occur. -- Timwi 09:40 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No. Actually it would be worse. Browsers not supporting utf will just destroy every special characters, instead of these three. I leave very ugly trails behind me on meta, and I cannot edit pages in french with accents. That is quite a trouble for me not to be able to write in my language :-)

John's patience is admirable, but maybe should should move those links to a new page, placing a Wikilink on the deletion page, just for now. We'll delete that page if necessary after the matter is closed. --Menchi 04:38 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

intro change

Since this is a very high traffic page, it can be difficult to track changes back to contributors. If you're wondering why the intro changed, here's the diff, by GrahamN: (The reason for this page is to make decisions democratic, not to "draw sysops' attention" to problems.) -- Tim Starling 14:49 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Also [1] on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. -- Tim Starling 14:56 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Er, oh. Was there some sort of procedure I was supposed to go through? I thought Wikipedia: xxx pages worked the same as any other article. Sorry if I have transgressed. GrahamN 15:03 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

consensus first

In an ideal world, I'd like to see contributors to an entry or set of entries to come to a consensus about deletion before listing a page here... but even I don't do that, so I can't really ask others to do so... :-( Martin 15:27 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

clean please

Someone please remove the requests that were already fulfilled or destroyed... Ilyanep 00:28 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

micro-stubs

Does anyone else get annoyed by micro-stub ""articles"" like this Antitussive, which keep appearing. The problem with them is they contain valid information, so cant really be deleted. But are little better than useless, and dont do Wikipedia's reputation much good.

Wouldn't it be an idea, to arrange the software, so that any page had to be at least, say 200 bytes long, before the contributor would be allowed to post it. Ensuring at least a paragraph of information. I personally think that single sentence stubs should be deleted on sight.

What does anyone else think? G-Man 22:06 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Stubs are an important part of wikipedia. They provide users the motivation to research and/or write a new article. I have turned many stubs into worth while articles myself, and I know that many others have done the same. Besides, why should we discourage contributions? MB 23:19 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good stubs are an important part of Wikipedia, I agree. It's questionable, however, whether single sentence stubs qualify — it's often not clear that a single sentence stub is any kind of improvement over no article at all. Wikipedia:The perfect stub article recommends that even a stub should be at least two useful sentences long, "And if you don't know enough about a topic to write two good sentences, consider not writing a stub."
(Incidentally, Antitussive is perhaps not a good example to use for this discussion; its status is complicated by the fact that it's a mere dictionary definition.) —Paul A 01:52 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's a pretty good idea, but I don't know if 200 bytes is too high a threshold. User:Smack

I agree, I dont object to stubs per-se, I've created/expanded a fair few of them myself. What I was objecting to was things like this.

For example, something like this:

==George Bloggs==
George Bloggs was an Irish Poet.

I am forever seeing things like this appearing on the new pages feature, and get very annoyed with it, cause I'm not sure what to do with them. Personally I think they shoud be deleted and the link left open. G-Man 20:24 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

moved to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/redirect

deletion notification

I think it should be a requirement that, when a page is listed for deletion, proper notification be made. At the very least, this should be a note in talk:. Furthermore, any of the the main contributor(s) who are registered users should also be notified, either by user talk: or IM. -Smack 06:16 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try to remember to do that in future. -- Oliver P. 06:29 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. Someone should probably create a boilerplate text, add it to Wikipedia:Boilerplate text, and make a link from VfD. --bdesham 17:45 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Maybe the note should be on the page itself rather than on the talk page. I'm thinking of new users who haven't yet found out about talk. Otherwise, they may find their article deleted and not know why. Then they quit contributing or they recreate the article which has to be deleted again. Angela

I agree with bdesham and Angela. How about this:

This page has been listed for deletion.

And write listed for deletion in the summary.

-Smack 21:00 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about: This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion. --bdesham 21:20 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like that wording. FearÉIREANN 00:50 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Fine by me. And don't forget about the edit summary. -Smack 03:30 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

by-day split with headers

Regarding the length of the votes for deletion page, one problem is that things get left too long, because no-one is sure of an outcome. So why don't we do as in current events and break the page into date headings. At the end of seven days, the block in question is dealt with. Everything in that day block is either deleted, not deleted, or if still undecided, is moved to a link page for decisions pending. The important fact would be that after 7 days, whatever the decisions, that block is removed. Otherwise we end up with some things sitting there for weeks as no-one makes the final judgment call, and if things are removed from the page but not deleted, people scream "why did you do that?" as they do indeed if you delete also. FearÉIREANN 01:00 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That seems reasonable - try it. This page could use the organization alone. --mav

seems reasonable to me. In particular the 7 days respect. Ant

Structuring the page into day sections make sense, this will also allow us to use the edit section feature once that goes live (next few days). --Eloquence 02:08 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the structuring you describe would be quite appropriate. What's the story with the software update? Will it definitely be in a few days? Will my date feature be in? -- Tim Starling 02:26 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Structuring the page is a very sensible idea! Why did no-one think of that before? -- Oliver P. 11:15 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

structure

I wonder if we should encourage people to discuss deletion with the author/on the talk page before listing here. That'd cut a lot of the noise, I think. Another way of cutting noise would be to insist that all discussion takes place on relevant talk pages. Then this page would be basically:

article title - see talk:article title
another article - see talk:another article
gripping article - see talk:gripping article
article group/part 1, article group/part 2, article group/part 3 - see talk:article group/part 1

Martin 13:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... This sounds like a good way of cutting the size of VfD, but the problem is that I use VfD to keep an eye on what the contentious articles are, by seeing which ones have a significant number of comments. That draws my eye immediately to the pages that might need looking into - as an editor. In addition, as a sysop, if I decide it's time I exercised my deletion powers, I just glance through the VfD page, and I can see at a glance (in many cases) which articles are good and which are bad, and act accordingly. If I have to go to the talk page of each article on the list to see this, it would take a lot longer. I'd have to go to several talk pages instead of just one page. I suppose there could be another line, summarising the status of the discussion, on the VfD page, like this:

article - see talk:article
- No opposition to deletion as of [date].
another article - see talk:another article
- Debate is raging! There are NPOV and copyright concerns here.

And so on. But that would mean people having to keep an eye on all the talk pages, to keep these little reports up to date. So I'm not sure... -- Oliver P. 13:57 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just nitpicking, but isn't that in essence what you've done with 100 Worst Britons et al? -- Jim Regan

I've added in the dates. BTW is there a way of taking the instructions at the top of the page out of the page size? That might reduce the size problems on the page, if it is technically possible. FearÉIREANN 22:13 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, Tim you misunderstood me. Maybe I didn't make it clear.

What I meant was that unless a decision is taken in an individual case earlier, items stay for exactly seven days and no more.
Then they are deleted, kept or if more debate is needed, moved to a linked page.

Other ideas:

Maybe, as well as listing the date (which I have now done) we should specify the date a decision is due by. So we should say July 10: Decision by July 15.

(cutting in) I'm slightly concerned about putting a time limit on discussion - what were you planning to do if on July 15 there's no decision either way? Or is this when you move the discussion? --mrd

Rather than redirect a long discussion back to the talk page of the article, I would think it would be easier to create a special page attached to the VfD debate, which clearly indicates when a decision must be taken. So for example Wikipedia: Delete Mickey Mouse debate linked simply to the VfD page and the talk page. At the top it would have the July 10: Decision by July 15 type message. The trouble about using the talk page is that other issues including the delete debate are on the page and all too often the discussion runs out of steam on the talk page, or gets drowned out by other debates on the article, leaving the page to be deleted in limbo, sitting forgotten on the VfD page. A separate delete debate page could be clearly focused on (a) taking a decision, not talking generally about the article, and (b) taking it in a narrow timespan, with the special page and the page being delated scheduled for removal in seven days. (The page would still remain in the records through the link to the article being debated's talk page and old edits of the VfD page.)

(cutting in) I dislike this idea. Discussions about deletion are often heavily affected by discussions about edits of the article. So, someone votes to delete an article because it's just a definition, then someone adds some questions that it'd be good for the article to answer, and then someone answers the questions, and then there's suddenly no demand to delete the article. Sounds like if I fixed a to-be-deleted article by redirecting it, then I'd have to explain this on three (!) different pages. Ick.

Having deletion on a seperate page means that people watching the article won't automatically be notified of changes to the deletion discussion.

Often deletion debate is quite short (eg, a couple paras) - creating a new page for that seems less efficient than just using the article's talk page. Martin 09:50 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Finally, it might be an idea to simply put a list either on the bottom of the page or a linked page, of those which decisions taken, in the form

Deleted

a, b, c, d

Kept

e, f, g, h.

I know deletions are listed in the deletion log, but I think it would be more sensible to give the details on the VfD page, as most people do not visit the deletion page. If possible, this page here should be all-inclusive. Other than those pages deleted by sysops as they are entitled to do in limited circumstances, everyone should be able to see (a) what pages have been put up for deletion, (b) when the decision must be made by, (c) what decisions have been made. FearÉIREANN 23:00 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd say no. VfD is huge enough as it is. I think we should just put a list of related pages at the top, just like at the Village Pump. -Smack 00:49 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the "Deleted" and "Kept" ideas are good, provided the size issues are solved. There should be a separate page for articles under debate, I'd definitely prefer to see a single debate page rather than putting the discussion on the talk page -- Jim Regan 03:09 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can we just struggle on as is until we get a new deletion system? Martin 09:50 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why struggle if we can improve the current system now? FearÉIREANN 19:24 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

40K is too long for VfD to be. David Strickland belongs on it, too. -- Someone else 05:47 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

deletion categories

When redesigning the deletion system, it would be nice imho that people are oftered a couple of choice to classify the type of deletion issue. Junk deleting without going through vfd, after vfd decision, deletion for cp reason...deletion for cp reason appears especially important to me, as if these articles are distinguished from the others, they could perhaps be permanently deleted from the database later.

Anthère

I think you're right about classification. I've given my support to that idea previously. -- Tim Starling 01:28 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is a good point and I am in full agreement. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC) (unclear - this may have been about lag time for copyvios)

I have posted a page that may have some significance to the deliberations on this talkpage. Check out Wikipedia:Waitingroom (draft version), and weigh in pro or con on its talkpage, or polish it for that matter, if you don't think it unredeemable. I know it is only a rough draft, but it was beginning to be at the stage where it probably benefits most from several fresh pairs of eyes perusing and polishing it. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:42 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page

There is quite a simple solution to the bloat problems on this early legacy page. Simply list articles up for deletion on the Votes for deletion page, and have discussion about it on the article's discussion page. One line per article on vfd, and problem solved. - Hephaestos 09:56 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hephaestos, your proposal seems very cumbersome to me. This seems like a place where a little software could go a very long way. Daniel Quinlan 10:05 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Software in what sense? I'm very much against a blanket software change that would do away with the 32k limit on articles, that would lead to article bloat.

And at any rate, I think an admin going to delete an article should at least skim it, and its talk page (if any). - Hephaestos 10:08 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Roughly, to nominate an article for deletion, I'd propose one of two methods: (1) adding it via a web form or (2) adding a link on the article page itself (as is done with POV disputes). The former is probably better. Then, someone could set up an SQL query to list current pages up for deletion and put them on a summary page which would be one big HTML form. Next to each line on the summary page, have four radio buttons ("no vote" as the default, "delete", "keep", "other") and a line for a comment (which must be entered for the vote to be used). These get added to the vfd summary page automatically. When a vote has concluded, just remove the entry or link and paste the comments into the talk page and delete (or not). Deletion is going to become more and more often as Wikipedia grows in popularity and someone might as well solve the problem right. I'm not volunteering, but I'd prefer to either solve it right or do a more minor split (like a page for copyright deletions, a page for ...). Using Talk: pages only would be a major pain because it would make commenting/voting very slow and cumbersome (although edit conflicts are getting to be a pain as well). Daniel Quinlan 10:37 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah but I was talking short-term. - Hephaestos 10:39 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Short term, I'd propose just splitting up the page. Put non-controversial stuff on one page (copyright, blatant self-aggrandizement, and vandals) and everything else (POV, non-encyclopedia, etc.) on another. I'd avoid more than two pages. Daniel Quinlan 10:43 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thing is, we seem to be paralyzed with regard to doing that. Non-controversial stuff, ideally, should be deleted on sight. There shouldn't be another page for non-controversial stuff, except:

Nobody agrees what's non-controversial.

And don't try to appeal to common sense here, I've seen several users in the past few months who (not to disparage them or anything) are either certifiably insane, or doing a darned good job imitating it.

What I proposed is really simple. List articles up-for-deletion on vfd, name and a short comment, and if any discussion is necessary (which it usually isn't) it can take place on the readily-available discussion page of the article in question. It's simplicity itself. Nobody's yet offered a better alternative.

Simple doesn't mean good. I can't imagine contributing as much to vfd if I have to jump back and forth to make any substantial comment. I don't think long comment moving is going to be anything but a short-term solution anyway. Solve it right the first time. Daniel Quinlan 11:14 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you insofar as it would be a good idea to look at a long-term solution like the one you suggest. (OK, I love the one you suggest. In a long-term world.) Nevertheless, something ought to be done now to alleviate the workload. You say you don't want to jump back and forth to comment, and that's fine, but realistically, how often does that sort of situation actually come up? On a really controversial page, one can add it to the watchlist, and not have to follow vfd after that. - Hephaestos 11:44 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hephaestos 10:56 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Amendment: I am most certainly not classifying my discussion partner Daniel Quinlan in the "certifiably insane category". I think the users I'm talking about there make themselves quite obvious. Hephaestos 11:08 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Blindingly obvious, yes. Daniel Quinlan 11:14 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Software redesign: meta:deletion management redesign. Read, suggest, implement. Hopefully such a redesign will do away with the need for this page. (or at least, that's my hope...). Martin 11:58 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

deletion policy change

Talking of deleting non-controversial stuff on sight, I recently expanded the relevant section of wikipedia:deletion policy from the vague and somewhat controversial "no useful content" to five specific cases - if you think there should be more, or less, specific cases, please do comment/edit appropriately. Thanks :) Martin 11:58 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The argument relating to Sonia on VfD seems to relate to a POV rather than any genuine argument for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:09 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Becker's argument about The Tailgating Spinster not being listed on FIMP's website any more is questionable. Are we going to maintain a watch on the website of every publisher for the moment a specific work is deleted so we can then delete the article on the work in question from Wikipedia? However just the general arguments relating to some of the articles to which I have contributed, some people are dissolving into a presumption against any article to which I have contributed which they can make a connexion, even a very loose connexion or even no connexion (this was done with Internet in art) to me. Standards are being applied to me that I have not seen argued for the application of to anyone else. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:24, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't maintain a watch on FIMP's site, I simple went there for the first time, and observed that they aren't even listing The Tailgating Spinster. I also looked into some of your other works, such as the comic strip you wrote. Also, you will find it hard for people to trust that you aren't just promoting yourself when writing articles, when you have been known to do it in the past. I personally acknowledge that you have made plenty of legitimate contributions (if I hadn't before, I do now). This just means I have to be more objective concerning your contributions than I do with other people. For instance, the edit war going on at chocolate. I agree that using chocolate for Coulage does not deserve mention here. However, didn't think that chocolate should be removed from Coulage as a material, just b/c you do chocolate coulages. I admit, I was more critical, but I didn't just assume you have invented it, and remove it. I did some research, and confirmed it.

What is your reference on my invention of chocolate coulages? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:07, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If anyone is jumping the gun on your contributions, please point them out to me, I am more than happy to help (and I admit, I have been guilty of this in the past). Sometimes you just need to talk things out. I still however assert that the article about you, Daniel C. Boyer is inappropriate for the wikipedia. I think Frecklefoot put it best when he said "wait until you do something that makes you famous." Also, please, call me Mike if you must refer to me as anything besides Mbecker, or MB. MB 01:02, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles

This is very true. Wikipedia works partly on reputation. A user with a reputation for mis-judging some issue will be subject to additional scrutiny, and we may require a level of proof that we do not for Wikipedians with a better reputation. Martin 23:24, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Archived 24 August

July 30

Of all pages, VfD would benefit most from having a table of contents, as it is always too long for some people (ok, me) to edit.

Until that glorious day arrives, will someone please add my vote to the RST paragraph as follows?:

Someone else - delete all articles but one, and be sure that one is clearly labeled with the NPOV equivalent of hooey. -- Someone else 07:08, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It hasn't got a TOC (no TOC's on wikipedia pages?), but it has [edit]-links at least. I added your vote. -- JeLuF 07:15, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oooh! I didn't notice them there. Thanks for pointing them out, and for enfranchising me! -- Someone else 07:19, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've disabled the toc using __NOTOC__ because it looks a bit ugly with the dates as headings preceded by numbers, but I'm working on addressing that now so we can bring it back.—Eloquence 07:22, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

I had an idea, perhaps not new, to reduce the bytes of VfD: why don't we create a separate page for posting nonsense pages to delete: like the ones having entries like "isn't life beautifull" or "f....". In this way, admnis could have a quick look on what to delete right away. The VfD page would be reserved for discussions, like the Daniel C. Boyer stuff. Any comments? Muriel Gottrop 13:48, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Works for me. 'Pages for immediate deletion', perhaps. -- Jake 06:44, 2003 Aug 6 (UTC)

See also near the top of Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive and Wikipedia:Waiting room (draft version) for other ideas about how to solve this problem. -- Tim Starling 07:01, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

Try wikipedia:deleted test. Martin

It seems nice. What is a sysop? Srry, i'm new... Muriel

A sysop is a system operator, similarly a sysadmin is a system administrator. Daniel Quinlan 09:52, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

OK, i will start to put my notices on that page. What about a special copyvios deletion page?? sysop-Muriel

I think you misunderstand, Muriel. You don't list articles on Wikipedia:Deleted test, you redirect articles to it. That way, when the author comes back to see what happened to their "wow i can edit this page" comment, they get an explanation of what's going on rather than a blank page. And for more information about sysops see Wikipedia:Administrators. -- Tim Starling 01:46, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Surrealism

It seems to me (although there are some arguments to be made in some of the cases) that a disproportionate number of the articles added to VfD or suggested to be deleted concern surrealism in the United States. When it even reaches the level that Franklin Rosemont and Surrealist Subversions are suggested, one has to question whether there is a tendency or if it is the idea or intention of one or more persons that information about surrealism in the United States should be purged from Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Refering to my additions in particular, based on your inappropriate contributions in the past, I have been looking at the contributions you have made, to see if the other articles you have been working on should be in the encyclopedia. It just so happens that those articles I was looking at at the time were on that topic. MB 15:02, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the vendetta is against you, Daniel, not surrealism. -- Tim Starling 01:50, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Erg. You two and your edit wars... VFD is most definitely NOT a good place to have them. Besides the multi-editing, cripes, those arnts you each post are wayyyyy too long for VFD anyway. If you're going to make them, have them be 'foo is unnecessary and NPOV and wrong, see Talk:foo'. Yeesh. And to think I've been avoiding editing VFD entirely after Tim Starling's comment.

I am looking through the history of VfD, and I see no reason listed here for why Charles Radcliffe and Dan Georgiakis were not deleted. Could someone tell me the reasoning in keeping them and not the other similar ones I listed here? マイカル (MB) 18:40, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

From the page history;

07:58, 14 Aug 2003 . . Robert Merkel (cleanup old entries that have either been deleted or kept)

Dan Georgiakis - Search for "Dan Georgiakis" returns only 9 results. This will never be more than a stub. MB 23:09, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

I'd probably put this on the borderline of encyclopedic -- a minor figure, but of some small historical interest perhaps. What does everyone else think? --Delirium 01:15, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Not missed when deleted, but not in the way when kept either. Might as well keep. Andre Engels 10:18, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

00:15, 14 Aug 2003 . . Robert Merkel (remove deleted stuff...)

Charles Radcliffe - Search for his name "Charles Jeremy St John Radcliffe" returns no results. There are a total of 17 mentions of the magazine he edited, "Heatwave". 7 results when search for references concering him and his citation in On the Poverty of Student Life. Only 24 mentions of him regarding surrealism (compaired to around 257,000 results when searching for surrealism). Search for articles relating him to the friends magazine returns 1 result. This will never be more than a stub. MB 22:27, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

While he's certainly not particularly famous, it seems that some of the stuff he was involved with, such as Heatwave, might conceivably be of historical interest. --Delirium 01:15, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

You may consider those not many hits, I'd say they are more than enough to keep him. Andre Engels 10:18, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Angela 19:20, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks マイカル (MB) 19:45, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Listed for deletion notice

NOTE: Always indicate on the listed page itself that it is here. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Listed_for_deletion_notice. If this is not done, then the page will not be deleted.

When did this become a rule, and where was it discussed? RickK 01:17, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK. It is a bit annoying when people post the same question in three different places, but here it the response I gave on your user talk page:

It was changed on the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page about a month ago (I think Martin wrote it, but I'm not sure). I'm not aware of any discussion on this other than Martin saying he was going to refactor the page, but I fully support the notion that we should inform authors that the pages they created are listed for deletion. That gives them a chance to defend their work and feel that they were given fair treatment even if their page is deleted. Minus the notice the author (esp newbies) will have no easy way to know about the listing, and they will not know why their page was deleted when finally it is. This policy is consistant with our open process tradition. I've also received a few complaints from newbies who had their pages deleted without notice. --mav 01:23, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It was added to the Deletion policy on 18 July by Eloquence. It was first mentioned on the VfD page on 15 August afaik. Angela 01:38, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It was moved to deletion policy by Eloquence - having previously been at the top of VfD. Don't know who added it to top of VfD. Martin 10:03, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure it got seen, because I have SERIOUS issues with the idea that ONE person can, all of a sudden, start putting changes to policy all over the place and expect all of us to toe the line without discussion. RickK 01:36, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah - it wasn't me. :) Martin

Angela added the current wording to the top of this page... I think her wording has an element of compulsion that wasn't in the previous version - I'm going to rephrase, as a temp measure. Martin 10:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No I didn't. I added a reminder to the bottom of the page. mav added it to the top. Angela 11:06, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Angela - I must have mis-diffed. :-( Martin

For what it's worth, I think it sounds like a sensible policy (for the reasons mav gives), even though I've only just become aware of it today. -- Oliver P. 10:50, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

On the whole I think it's a good idea and somethign which I have tended to do anyway. However there are one or two cases where I havent done this because I haven't been sure about the general reaction to suggesting a page be deleted (I'm particularly thinking of shit sandwich here). Adding a "this page is currently listed at votes for deletion" may be seen as tantamount to vandalism by some; even if it is only there for information purposes. The only other problem I see with this policy is that if a page is listed on votes for deletion and then it is agreed not to delete it for some reason, the page may accidentally get left with the "votes for deletion" notice still in it. Mintguy 10:58, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, what do you mean about the "general reaction to suggesting a page be deleted"? We want to know what people's reactions are! The discussion on VfD is supposed to resolve the issue of whether or not something should be deleted, by inviting people on both sides to present their arguments. It's not meant as a place to secretly conspire to get things deleted without other people noticing. As mav says above, the Wikipedia process is supposed to be open. Secondly, has anyone actually accused the notice of being "vandalism", or is this a hypothetical concern? I'm sure that anyone who would object to a page being "vandalised" would object far more strenuously to that same page being deleted without them knowing it had even been nominated for deletion. Thirdly, yes, people might occasionally forget to remove the notice, but anyone can remedy that later on. It's easy enough to check if it's still true or not. (Just click on "What links here".) -- Oliver P. 12:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a good suggestion, though it's not something I think should be enforced - I'd kinda prefer people did it because it's a good idea, rather than because they feel they have to. Of course, we still need that meta:deletion management redesign - eventually. Martin 16:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure where all of the discussion of this was; I've mostly only read what appeared on wikiEN-L. I won't comment on the whole «Was policy changed unilaterally?», «Should it be a requirement or optional?», business that's come up on the mailing list recently, but instead consider what's the best practice. I'm strongly sympathetic to listing these, but I understand that some people have objected even to the very practice (preferring to simply blank the page) on the grounds that:

Adding the notice more work than blanking the page.
A blanked page tells the software in various contexts that there's no content there.

My suggestion: Redirect here to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, which explains everything! This page would need a little text at the top to explain the redirect, but the objections above are resolved:

Since you have to go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion anyway to list the page, typing in the redirect (a little work) saves you work later (you can just click to get to VfD);
The software knows that redirects have no content.

So who has those objections, and do you think that a redirect would work better? -- Toby Bartels 00:00, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From wikiEN-L: That's the best solution so far. But if it's replaced by content, what should be placed there? -- LittleDan

I guess that then you'd still have to use the notice. But it could be a friendlier notice, saying that the page is listed, but it probably won't be deleted now. -- Toby Bartels 03:11, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Toby. The problem with that argument is that blanking the page is not the only alternative to adding the notice; in fact, it's a very rare alternative, and one that I disapprove of in almost all circumstances! When a page is listed on VfD, I want to be able to click on the link to that page, and immediately see what the content of that page was that prompted someone to list it on VfD. I don't want to be confronted with a blank page (or just be redirected back to VfD again!), as that tells me nothing about what the problem with that page was. I'd have to go into the page's history to find out, which is tiresome. A large proportion of pages listed on VfD just need a bit of editing to sort them out. What if I went into the page's history, and found that I could sort out whatever was wrong with it? I'd edit the article, and then it would no longer be a redirect to VfD any more. And yet it would still be listed on VfD. So we're back where we started. Adding a note to the top of a page shows everyone who looks at it what its status is, but doesn't interfere with anyone who wants to edit the page to improve it. -- Oliver P. 00:18, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Oliver. A redirect doesn't make sense when people need to check the page to decide if it should be deleted. Angela 01:03, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, your objection makes sense. I suppose that I could argue that a redirect is still better than blanking, but what you're saying is, blanking isn't very good either. So I withdraw my suggestion except to say that it may be better than blanking, in case anybody still does that. -- Toby Bartels 03:11, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Where were you guys on the mailing list? I was starting to think everybody had gone insane and abandoned our wiki ideals. Brion was the only one that I remember expressing the same sentiment that is shown above. --mav

Argh, sorry. I did actually compose a message defending you on the mailing list, but then I cancelled it, because the next message from you defended yourself much better than I had done. After that, it seemed as if everything had been said, and that the debate had ended, and I didn't want to prolong it. As it turned out, the debate continued for a lot longer than I thought it would, but I wasn't sure that my contribution would have any more effect than just prolonging it further... -- Oliver P. 21:22, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC) P.S. - This was coupled with the fact that I'm lazy, of course.

saving discussion from VfD after keeping an article

I've thought of another practice which might be helpful. If a page has gone through VfD for a week and emerged without being deleted, this fact should probably be noted on the article's talk page, with a link to the last revision of VfD which discussed the issue. This would be useful for future reference should the possibility of deleting the page arise again. Arguments on VfD are usually just removed when they have finished, without being saved anywhere. If we don't know about the old arguments, we run the risk of repeating the same arguments over and over again. -- Oliver P. 12:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some people copy/move discussion over from VfD - when it expresses something worth saving. Martin

This is true. But some people don't... So I thought it was worth bringing up. And it might be worth noting that linking to an actual past revision of VfD would save space on the article's talk page, depending on whether that's considered important. -- Oliver P. 17:30, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a good suggestion. Perhaps we could add some advice to that effect on the deletion policy page. Any objections? Martin 16:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Angela 22:59, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've already been doing this for a month now. --mav 23:01, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

deletion notice alternative

I just had an idea that should please everyone. Please ignore my ignorance of the discussion, I have only been keeping up via the mailing list. I see 2 lines of thought. 1. There should always be a boiler-plate on the page, to inform interested parties of an article being listed on Vfd. 2. Posting a boiler-plate should be optional, b/c they make the article look ugly. Now, if we change the policy so that boiler-plate's are put on the talk page, interested parties (people with it on thier watch list probably) will still see the notice, and it won't make the article look ugly. What do you guys think? Is this do-able? { MB | マイカル } 20:52, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

There is a line of thought you missed- the "we can't be bothered to do that" one. Putting it on the talk page means more work, as you then have to go to the article (to know you want to delete it), VfD and the talk page. An alternative might be to have a VfD for people who followed the policy and a 'quick VfD' for those who don't want to explain what's wrong the article, haven't really considered it very much and don't want to add any boilerplate text. The policy-following people could then move things from 'quick VfD' to 'real VfD' and do the boilerplating stuff. We should be grateful that people spend their time listing on VfD rather than ignoring the problems, not criticising them for not following "policies". Angela

Well, I can understand that sentiment, however, the bioler plate is currently the easiest way to contact interested parties about the listing. It is easier to post a boiler plate (should take no more than 30 precious seconds) than for an interested party to go looking for it in the deletion log. Not to mention that I don't think most users actually know how to get a page undeleted. { MB | マイカル } 21:38, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

I second the idea of a "quick VfD". What would happen is, people would list stuff on "quick VfD" only, thus satisfying their desires of looking helpful without actually putting in the effort to do it properly. Then, once a week, the "quick VfD" page could be wiped, and all the votes on it silently ignored. Everyone's happy.

Less flippantly, I dislike the idea of putting a VfD boilerplate on the talk page. As Angela notes, it's more work, both for nominator, and for deleting sysop. Also, it won't be seen by as many people. In many cases a VfD boilerplate serves the dual purpose of explaining to the reader that the page is dubious in some sense, so it's something we should present to every reader. Martin 23:32, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I only suggested the quick VfD as some people have been saying they refuse to add the boilerplate text, so this could be a possible solution, but perhaps not. Anyway, changing the topic slightly, it is written in a few places that the boilerplate thing is optional. So, if something has been on for a week and doesn't have one, is it still ok to delete it? If not, do you just list it for another week? Angela

It absolutely must be allowed to delete pages without boilerplate text. Otherwise I am strictly against the idea.—Eloquence 00:00, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

My opinion - use your judgement. If it looks like the primary author is aware of the VfD discussion, or has left Wikipedia, then probably safe to delete. If you think deleting the article might take the author by surprise, then maybe it's best to add the boilerplate and wait another couple of days. But no compulsion without consensus. Martin 00:22, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is just getting silly now. Are you really going to check who the main authors of the article were and then wander off to see whether or not they might have left Wikipedia? How do you decide if they've left? What if they're just on holiday?

In most cases these things are obvious from the VfD discussion, the page history, and the talk page (which you should be reading anyway, prior to deletion). For example, if the page has one edit, from an anonymous IP, two months ago, then just delete. Like I say, use your judgement. Martin 09:22, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps we just need clearer instructions to newbies on what to do if they want a page undeleted. It makes deletion less of an issue then. I shall add it to the boilerplate welcome text. Angela

Over time, I have noticed that the VfD page is irritatingly slow to edit. It often takes 2-3 minutes for it to save any additions I've made to the list. Is this perhaps because the page is too big? If so, you should consider purging daily the articles that have been there for 7 days, and have been determined to be deletable.Vancouverguy 20:19, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe that is already done. Only pages which have yet to reach consensus remain longer than 7 days. You might find it easier just to edit a section at a time rather than trying to open up the whole page for editing. Angela

Be more careful! (rant)

I hope everyone realises that listing/deleting a page someone has created will, if the author comes back, almost certainly piss them off. Proceed with extreme care! 20-30% of the pages listed on VfD does not belong there imhpov. I mean isn't the whole idea with this page to list only articles that should permanentely be deleted from wikipedia, never to reappear! I mean if the page is blank, google it and write a one-line introductory sentence. If the page contains a copyright vio, remove or rewrite it. If it's POV content, hell, it's better than no content right?

I just think VfD is abused and people place stuff there way to liberally just like the snooker player that almost got the axe. Just my humble opintion. BL 22:58, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

VfD seems to have become more of a "please fix this within the next week" than a place to list things that really should be deleted. Things that really should be deleted are often deleted immediately by various sysops anyway. A solution if people did not want to fix it themselves would be to add it something like Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub but that is already well overcrowded. Angela

Deleting links of deleted pages

Thanks for deleting the page Man, matter and magic squares. However I found that the manually created links to the page still existed, while the automatic ones in the user contributions got deleted. I have tried to manually delete all the links, but I think I saw someone else also pointing to this page. Will someone please do the needfulKRS 06:39, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found one at Mandala and removed that. Angela

Size of this page

VfD now takes 20 seconds on my broadband connection to even load, let alone edit. I've seen it go over 76k, with an ostensible limit of 32k.

I know we can edit sections now, but adding pages for deletion does not admit for editing a section.

Has anyone given further thought to listing one line consisting of the page up for deletion, with a link to the talk page of that article, where the discussion would take place? After all that's what article talk pages are for (or at least that's what I thought). - Hephaestos 02:40, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That makes sense - especially if the page is not deleted so it can be kept as a record, avoiding it being relisted for the same reasons. Angela

Exactly. And if the page is deleted the talk page could be left for later, citing earlier problems with the article etc. Much better record-keeping than having to go through the edit history of VfD. - Hephaestos 02:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think that would be the wrong solution. On talk pages, everything gets discussed, with no focus on the specific issue, which is whether to delete or not, let alone any attention to the timeframe for making a decision. A more sensible approach would be to create a specific deletion page for that article, as we did with those annoying ban pages. There the discussion could be limited exclusively to the delete issue, not a general discussion on anything and everything with the debate fizzling out as everyone has lost track or the debate has ended up way up at the top of the page. From my experience, moving a delete discussion to the talk page has usually resulted in stalemate, with the issue forgotten about and the page remaining on the VfD page overlooked for weeks. If we go off the VfD page it has to be to somewhere where the debate will be focused and time-framed, ie, debate starts on the 1st of September, ends on 7th. That rarely happens on talk pages, where it goes on for weeks, or gets completely forgotten.

The delete page should be linked to (1) the VfD page, (2) the talk page, (3) the article page, with the talk page linked to the DD page. When a decision is taken, the page could then be archived to the talk page. So you would have

Mickey Harte - I propose to delete.

For discussion, see Mickey Harte/Delete Debate

When finished, it could be archived as Wikipedia talk:Mickey Harte (Delete Debate archive). FearÉIREANN 22:21, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC) (PS: I never realised we actually had an article on Mickey. I'm not really proposing to delete your page, Mickey Joe! Honest! :-)

PPS: It would mean that as well as the VfD, we can also refer to the DD page. Nifty, eh.

Most Recent Addition heading

Just a note about the Most Recent Addition heading: not only does it make it easy to get to the most recent addition via the ToC, but by editing that section and placing a new entry above the heading marker, it is appended to the previous section. Thus, at the end of the day, you can add a new item without having to scroll through all that day's items in that day's section. --Dante Alighieri 19:58, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives