Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/May-June 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Did I just break the page?

It was my first go at trying to do one of those clever link things... Oh dear. --bodnotbod 16:24, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine. There are enough people hanging around VfD that any mistakes you make get fixed pretty quickly. Looking at the change log, you appear to have done it correctly, what problem were you having? --Ben Brockert 21:50, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
It was just the coincidence between my first attempt at creating the tricksy 'VfD' link and getting a screen full of gobbledegook ;o) --bodnotbod 21:53, May 5, 2004 (UTC)


Incorrect removal from VfD?

Here User:Mackerm removed the VfD entry for a discussion that was not concluded. However, he was the one who originally nominated it. Should a page be removed by the auther when things don't go their way, or should the debate be allowed to conclude? --Ben Brockert 23:33, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Legally, that's withdrawing your case, a fair legal move. I think that the people who nominate articles for deletion should be allowed to retract their complaints should they feel so inclined- but only them (and admins, of course). If anyone else has an issue with a given article, he or she can renominate it for deletion. Sound fair? -Litefantastic 00:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Legally, if you ask someone a question on the stand, and you don't like their answer, you can't just have it stricken from the record. Either way, this isn't a legal process. It turns out that the article has gone to RfC, and we may yet see it back on VfD, so it was mostly a false alarm. I'm not going to remove this discussion, out of prinicple. :) --Ben Brockert 03:02, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • The legal model is not really applicable. We guide ourselves by community standards which have evolved over time (and which continue to evolve). I think that once an article has been nominated, it should run its course no matter what. New facts arise during the discussion and the consensus can change. That said, if the nominator strikes through their own comments, I give that a lot of weight when making up my own mind. I also appreciate it when the VfD discussion is copied to the article's Talk page (which only happens at the end of the discussion period) so that we have a record of the decision. Rossami 01:45, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
    • You're going to love this: Your argument has changed my mind. Really. So am I allowed to withdraw my debate or what? What seems reasonable for this sort of thing? Slashing through prior statements seems to be popular. -Litefantastic 01:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
      • I assume the best of people: that they will read through the entire discussion before commenting, so a retraction later in the thread will be seen before they make their comment. I may be too charitable there, though, and strikethrough is popular. --Ben Brockert 01:33, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Even if everyone is reading diligently, the strike thru (1) simplifies the math if you're making a personal straw poll, and (2) alerts anyone reading the debate for the first time to at least be mentally prepared to discount the struck-thru material later on, and may alert them to remember struck-thru in more detail, in order to not have to refer back to it to understand in detail the later discussion of the retraction. So using strike-thru does not have to reflect fear of colleague's carelessness. --Jerzy(t) 01:26, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

Revised Addition Instructions

I've been bold and edited the instructions for adding a page to VfD. There was a great deal of confusion about where non-letter characters are allowed, so I've tried to separate the concept of the two links from each other. I'd appreciate comments here or on the talk page for the message itself. --Ben Brockert 23:52, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Is Pre-Toc Index to Days Backwards?

I think it was i who originally put the "mini-ToC" with most recent day on the left, on the theory that most people want to jump to a recent day (to get back up to date), and that it would be marginally faster to use, on average, that way. Today there were no entries in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old (thanks to the extended diligence of two of our colleages), and i was forced to picture myself, tommorrow, having to stop to think about about the over-5-days-old entries, that i've taken off the top of VfD (and that i changed the entry for, at the bottom of the mini-ToC), needing to go at the bottom of the Old page. I expect those who read this talk to manage that with at least the grace i fantasized myself showing, but are all the maintainers of the mini-ToC going to be as well prepared?

My own plan is to watch for signs of trouble tomorrow (when the cues are at their lowest ebb, among days when the top and bottom are not identical) and not worry about preventing it until a problem is exhibited.

It would of course be easy, and i'm nearly certain still work well enough, to once rebuild the mini-ToC markup, so everything visually communicates "new stuff at the bottom, no exceptions".--Jerzy(t) 01:49, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

2. Online functions

im confused... please delete 2. Online functions ~~----

VfDFooter

Why is there so much blank space between

VfD Footer section

and

To list a page for deletion:

RickK 22:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

  • When the page got cloned over the weekend, it wasn't fixed quite right. The extra lines should be gone now. --Ben Brockert 21:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

One of the instructions in the VfD footer section is incorrect. It presently reads:

====[[Page name]]====
[[Page name/VfD|Add to this discussion]]<p>{{Page name/VfD}}
<!-- You are about to edit the main page. Please go back and use the "Add to this discussion" link to add your vote or comment. -->

When it should actually read:

====[[Page name]] — [[/Page name|Add to this discussion]]====
{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Page name}}
<!-- You are about to edit the main page. Please go back and use the "Add to this discussion" link to add your vote or comment. -->

I think I'm gonna change it now. Revert if I screwed up. --Ardonik 07:02, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Massive list and growing

OK, the ever growing nature of VfD is presumably a problem for those doing deletions - but what about the voters.

It's getting harder and harder to

a) download the page
b) load the page in browser
c) navigate it

May I suggest that

a) VfD notices on pages listed for deletion automatically link to the appropriate section
b) When loading the page, user is shown a random subset of the current VfD debates?

Is it possible to amend stuff to do this?

Seriously, I presume that there's an ever-increasing problem with VfD.

Zoney 00:24, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't think it is an ever-increasing problem. The rate of VfD is fairly constant, and people have fallen into routines that keep the page flowing smoothly. The page itself rarely crosses the 32k mark. People who don't like the format don't spend as much time keeping it running, but that would be true of any possible format.
Downloading the page would take a bit of time on a modem, but with modern tabbed browsers, it's only necessary to do that once, even if you vote on every item (which no one does). I wouldn't want to try it with Lynx, but normal browsers have no problems, I've tried it on a few. Navigation is just like any other long page on Wikipedia, of which there are many. Every browser has a find function, and the page has a table of contents.
Neither of your suggestions are implementable, as far as I know. We could complicate the instructions some more so that links would go directly to the discussion, but some people wouldn't accept that. This is meant to be encyclopedia software, so I doubt it has any provision for showing random parts of a page. Even if it could, that wouldn't mesh with the purpose of VfD. --Ben Brockert 04:16, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
The page is 30k when editing it. The page viewed in a browser is currently over 90k. I can use the page at home because I have a fast computer and a good connection, but using it with the less powerful computers at school results in the computer stalling for a good 15 seconds, which is so frustrating that I simply avoid browsing VfD there. I bet that there are many Wikipedia regulars who don't have access to fast computers at all. It's not a matter of people "liking the format", but of people being able to use it at all. It's also true that navigation is too hard. The list of links to talk pages would solve this. Fredrik 09:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
You only need to load it once every five days, so even if it takes a minute, it shouldn't be a huge problem, should it?. Angela. 09:37, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
It is a problem if I want to be active -- say, by listing new deletion requests. I usually abstain from doing that when browsing from school. Also, discussions benefit from people participating in them from as early on as possible. Not to mention the ongoing need for maintenance due to the complexity of the current format, and some people being ruled out from doing that. Fredrik 10:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
You don't need to load the 90kb version to edit it. It is less than 32kb to edit. Just use the full url, which you could link to from your user page. How is it going to be easier to maintain by hiding the discussion on talk pages? Are you going to open every talk page (currently 135 pages) every day to follow the discussion? I really can't see how would make the process easier than just opening one large page. Angela. 10:19, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
Although several users have complained about the current VfD setup, the number of proposed deletions has dramatically increased since the change to mediawiki pages. This indicates that the current VfD, although fiddly and needing a large page load, is still more usable than the perma-edit-conflict we had before.
It seems clear that the "discussion on talk page" method is not going to fly. The alternative next step is to have two vfd pages, the current one plus a new one that has only a list of titles plus links to the mediawiki delete discussion, with no inline expansion of the debate. Would the extra maintenance overhead be worth it? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I do think it'd be easier, I'd at least like to give it a try. I might test running a separate condensed list myself to see how it works out. Fredrik 11:07, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I have been doing what Pete/Pcb21 and Fredrik are discussing this week; i update my private condensed list after a day or two, and watch-list the ones i'd like to continue to monitor. The conversion is a breeze: two global edits in MS Notepad to convert the msg call to a normal pointer. (And i ignore the "join the debate" link, using "edit this page" while reading the MediaWiki page.) I'm not sure a common condensed version, which would generally be a ways behind the real VfD would be worth it. The only pinch i feel is when i didn't bother voting on some entry but watchlisted it, and then see on my watchlist something that makes it worth commenting or voting on. I go straight to it from my watchlist, and sometimes want to refer to the article being voted on -- but i don't have my VdD-condensation open, and sometimes i have to reconstruct the title by guesswork to see the article. Would go smoother if the MW page had a link to the article, in addition to the link fromthe heading on the VfD page. (With 1.3, can everything between two headings be transcluded from one single-parameter MW msg call, generating the msg that does the transclusion of MW debate page, the MW-debate-page edit link, the MW-debate-page view link, and another link to the article? If so, my two multi-char global edits collapse to a single char global edit, that changes my copy to calling instead a nearly identical single-parameter MW, with a name differing by one letter and a content omitting the MW-debate-page transclusion. --Jerzy(t) 02:01, 2004 May 29 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism page archive

There was some vandalism involving page moves earlier. They are slow for very busy pages, so it is intended to temporarily protect this page and Village Pump and move them to an archive page to protect against that slow operation happening at a busy time of the day. The protection will last no longer than it takes to complete the move. Please object before the clock reaches :50 after the hour if you do not want this anti-vandalism step to be taken. Jamesday 04:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The archiving move is in progress now. I'll post again once it has completed - if you look at VfD and still see all of the history, it hasn't finished yet! Jamesday 05:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The process is complete for VfD. Doing it for Village Pump has been postponed. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion archive May 2004 if you need history earlier than today. Jamesday 06:27, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki

Why oh why did we go back to the 125k fiasco? - Hephaestos|§ 06:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. Indeed. Please, please, please bring back the MediaWiki VfD. It's a pain this way. -- Cymydog Naakka 12:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me many of the arguments for having VfD be a "list of links" are still valid even with the diff-style "patching" for handling edit conflicts in the new software. VV 06:34, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I would disagree--I know that the non-MediaWiki system will encourage me to do more VfD maintenance. Meelar 06:34, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Edit conflict, edit conflict, edit conflict My first couple of attempts to edit the new VfD page came up edit conflict. Then when I painstakingly scrolled through the two huge lists to reconcile them, which of course takes a minute or so, and pressed "Save" I got another edit conflict. Just like the bad old days. I'd understood that the new software was supposed to give edit conflicts only when two different users had actually changed the very same portion of the page, but, whatever it does, it's not working in VfD. Bring back the previous format.

Seconded. I miss being able to look up the history of each entry separately, it also was far easier to edit discussions in a new window when using mediawiki. - SimonP 13:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we're getting edit conflicts, that's really a fault of the system? There are still serious flaws with the MW system, in any case... Dysprosia 13:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly still flaws with the MW system, but they pale in comparison to this mess. - Hephaestos|§ 15:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Some of the flaws in the MW system are not present in the template system (e.g. spaces and _s should now be treated equivalently where appropriate), which is the alternative to the current "all-in-one system". Another thing not mentioned is that it was useful to have individual delete debates on your watchlist. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The new (MW, now called Template) method was deimplemented, apparently without discussion other than a summary line indicating that it was no longer needed bcz of ed-con avoidance. But (unless template-per-debate) is restored, even once ed-con avoidance works,

  • it will continue be burdensome to do edits of the page as a whole (needed in practice at least once a day for the move of a day's entries to /Old)
  • every nomination requires either reloading the whole page (or more than likely putting the nomination before an older one, which may cause some editors never to read it)
  • watchlisting VfD is pointless and watchlisting an individual debate is impossible
  • attaching an individual VfD debate to a retained article still needs to be done (just later).

Tho i have not worked out the details, IMO the template enhancements will considerably ease the per-nomination burden that has put some editors off. Template-per-debate should be reimplimented as soon as a suitable template, exploiting the parameter and nesting features, can be put into place. --Jerzy(t) 18:04, 2004 May 30 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, so let's just try it all-in-one for a while with the new software and see how it works. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Just because the wikicode was templated elsewhere didn't reduce amt of scrolling or amt of time to load the whole page. User are still able to edit by section, so the difference is not great.

The Template format made is extremely burdensome for admins to cleanup/delete articles. For kept articles, the MW needed to be copied to talk and deleted, for deleted articles, they had to be linked at the archives. To avoid doing this, I simply stopped cleaning up vfd. The old non-template format is much easier to handle and leaves less of a mark on the system. --Jiang 19:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

What a miss. Tim Starling told me 'edits as patches' does not work just yet, so we switched back for the wrong reasons too early. I'll just have to stay away from vfd for a while. Btw, with the new spiffy other stuff, we could do nifty things with the old system, and including something like a link to Template:VFD-{ {PAGENAME} } in Template:Vfd ✏ Sverdrup 09:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I tried setting this up on...test? or was it meta? Oh well, doesn't matter. It didn't work entirely properly. The code may have changed since then to allow it, so it may be worth a second look. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please go back to MediaWiki (or the new equivalent). This is much slower to use. 1) Every edit forces the page to reload. On dial-up, this is painful. 2) I waste more time scrolling. (I used to rightclick to open the discussion page in a separate window without losing my place in the list. That does not seem to work correctly with section edits.) 3) I can no longer look at the history of a particular discussion. History was an effective control with anonymous users and probable sockpuppets. MediaWiki may have been clunky for nominating a page, but it worked (and there were always enough people ready to volunteer to convert a nomination). As someone else said above, the increase in nominations and traffic is evidence that it was working. Rossami 04:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I do not understand Jiang and Meelar's objections to the cleanup. I only recently tried my hand at it and found it rather easy. For kept pages, rather than copy the discussion contents to the talk page, I just moved the MediaWiki link onto the talk page. That preserves the discussion in a way that is visible to all users but relatively difficult to modify or delete. Is there some system reason why MediaWiki pages can not be kept forever? Rossami 04:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, aside from them being moved into the Template: namespace before too long... but that's a technicality. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've also done quite a lot of clean up under both systems, and think the level of effort is about the same under both. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm (relatively) new here, so please don't bite me for saying this. But isn't VfD the kind of discussion that would best be served by a bulletin board? I mean, is there a pressing reason VfD has to be in wiki format? -- Wikisux 16:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The same thought has occurred to me. It would seem to make sense that any discussion use a more typical discussion board design, like that of phpBB. "Discussion as document" doesn't feel right. -- Stevietheman 03:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Coming in on this late, but I've become rather fond of the "discussion as document" model, and I know that if Vfd was moved out of wiki, I would never ever participate in it. (Not that I do much there now, but at least sometimes I do.) --ssd 01:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Why has boilerplate been removed?

Why is this? Before, one could easily check up on clueless newbies, by looking at the Mediawiki history page, or the vfd history page since it was edited a lot less. but its a lot more difficult now. Has this got sthg to do w/ the new servers? Dunc Harris | Talk 12:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

  • One of those clueless newbies here. Why is this both section 1 and section 11? Also, why did you (Duncharris? or DuncHarris?) mark my Zeke Hoskin article VfD without listing it there? Haruo 18:45, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It appears that a large section of the page (which I just deleted) was duplicated. --ssd 05:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Overreliance on Google results

I've noticed a disturbing trend of basing the validity or significance of article subjects on the number of "hits" the term receives in Google search results. I'm not really asking for anything to change specifically, but I'd like to caution people against using that as the only means of deciding whether to delete an article or not. --Jeff 03:11, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • I like to think that VfD voters read the articles that they're voting to delete or keep, because that's probably the most reliable way to get a feel for something. Google should be a tool, not the entire box. I don't think it's been a problem yet, but I'm glad Jeff brought it up. Lord Bob 03:20, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • I do read the article in question. I just use Google to check on how notable the article really is. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, a dearth of Google hits may be a sign that an article is dearly needed. Haruo 18:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thoughts on new-page-creation notice text

It is currently:

You are at a page that does not exist yet. To create an article on this topic, type in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button. Your addition to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so if you just want to test how things work, please do that in the sandbox. Please understand that nonsensical submissions will be removed. Thanks!

I would like to see it be more specific in addressing two categories of pages which frequently end up on VfD: vanity pages and promotional/advertising pages. IMHO, these are more of a problem than "nonsensical" submissions. I'm thinking of something like this:

You are at a page that does not exist yet. To create an article on this topic, type in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button. Your addition to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so if you just want to test how things work, please do that in the sandbox. Please do not create an article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. Articles that are not in accord with Wikipedia's policies may be removed.

Thoughts? (And, how does the text get defined and/or changed? Presumably this requires a Developer?) Dpbsmith 23:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The message is located at MediaWiki:Newarticletext, it's protected, of course, but that shouldn't be a problem for you ;). - Lee (talk) 23:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Make the mention of the sandbox a clickable link for the (possibly neophyte) user and they might be more likely to take the detour. I'd also suggest the the last sentence be extended to read Articles that are not in accord with Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice. --VampWillow 23:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd say keep the message short, but link out from it to two articles. One, the formal inclusion policy (ahem). Two, a rough-guide "what's in / what's out / what's elsewhere (i.e. wiktionary, wikibooks, wikisource, maybe wikitravel)" table. Frankly I don't blame most of the authors who inadvertently put up dicdefs, bios on what they _thought_ were their own pages, etc., as it's not clear, particularly for the unseasoned, what should go where. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think someone is going to need to draft a brand-new page for this purpose, as I don't think anything there now will do. I may take a crack at this. Dpbsmith 19:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I like the changes. However, could the text starting with "Please do not create..." begin a 2nd paragraph and perhaps be bolded or italicized? -- Stevietheman 16:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, next iteration:

You are at a page that does not exist yet. To create an article on this topic, type in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button. Your addition to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so if you just want to test how things work, please do that in the sandbox.
Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. Read this GUIDE before creating your first encyclopedia article. Articles that are not in accord with Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.

...where GUIDE will be a link to an as-yet-unwritten page that is specifically intended for newbies.Dpbsmith 19:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the proposed additions are an excellent idea. It could IMO go ahead without the reference to the GUIDE while the guide is being written. I suspect that many newbies get off on the wrong foot through honestly not knowing that their autobiography or advert is unwelcome. This is a good 'stitch in time' approach IMO. Andrewa 21:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point in waiting for the GUIDE if we can begin to reduce the junk articles now. -- Stevietheman 22:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have a rough draft for the guide. Please critique. Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and use Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as the guide. Dpbsmith 23:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Urgent request for bug review

Twice now, I've used the section edit to add my thoughts to a discussion. When I went back to the list to keep reading, I noticed that my entry had created a duplicate section and overwritten the entire following section. What is going on? Rossami 00:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Things have gotten bad in VfD now that we are back to a full page edit conflict instead of MediaWiki pages. Someone duplicated much of the page by accident and I have deleted a nomination when trying to delete the second footer section. Either it needs to be fixed or we need to go back to MediaWiki-style votes or some other condensed format. - Tεxτurε 19:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think we definitly need to go back to the mediawiki style. I liked being able to watch particular debates and confining the edits to a certain page instead of one massive page is certainly usefull. --Starx 02:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. It's almost impossible to write a comment for more than 10 seconds without getting a conflict. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:23, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Concur. While the software improvements to allow simultaneous editing of different sections without edit conflicts are nice, I don't think it's adequate for the needs of this page. I thought the separate MediaWiki messages were working reasonably well here, and I think we should go back to that approach (presumably using the new template namespace). --Michael Snow 17:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please bring back MediaWiki. Undoing the damage to this page is getting to be a career. - Tεxτurε 17:42, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we've tried it long enough to have decided it isn't working. I support a return to included pages, but with a variation. Because of the more generalized inclusion in MW 1.3, we can put these pages somewhere logical. I've tested it out with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Debate/Test. That page can be included with {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Debate/Test}}

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Debate/Test

I think it'd be a bit easier for people to wrap their heads around than using the Template namespace. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I like it. Can you come up with a standard naming convention? Are we going to use VfD-Test Article or Wikipedia:VfD-Test Article or something similar? - Tεxτurε 17:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking like I had it in the example: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Debates/Test article. There's no weird prefixes to worry about, and you just have to fill in the article name. It is a bit long though. -- 18:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since there is no need for a structural folder-like heirarchy, I'd opt for the simpler VfD-Test Article. By using "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Debates/" you do, in effect, add a weird prefix. - Tεxτurε 18:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, subpages work on Wikipedia namespace pages. Sticking a slash in front of the article name ([[/Test Article]]) will produce the same result as [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Test Article]]. Using subpages also means that there are links back to the main VfD page. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:46, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Michael Snow 00:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, we are working to fix the duplication of sections. I propose the following (and will be bold as soon as the page is unprotected). Rossami 23:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To list a page for deletion:

  1. Go to the page you want to delete and insert {{vfd}} at the top of that page.
  2. Come back to this page and copy the following text:

    ====[[Page name]]====
    {{ed|Page name|here}}<br>
    {{Template:Page name}}

  3. Edit this page and paste the text below the last heading.
  4. Replace Page name in each line with the name of the page that you are proposing for deletion.
  5. Save page.
  6. Click the new Edit here link and write why, according to our deletion policy, the page should be deleted.
  7. Save your edit.
I've made some changes to incorporate the use of subpages of VfD instead of cluttering up the Template namespace. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And I've implemented it on the listing for Surviving as an example. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's wrong, but it's not linking through properly. I can see the edits, but can not click through to contribute to the debate. Instead, the link takes me to Template:Deletion. I like your approach of using subpages and tried to make it work yesterday. I'm going to revert the Template:VfDFooter alternate instructions for now. If we can make your process work, please change it back. Rossami 01:22, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Crap. I just realized something that's going to be a serious problem. There's a limit on the number of times a single template can be used on a given page. It's not going to work. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of new article text and proposed guide

I've just changed the new article text—the text that appears when you edit a page that doesn't yet exist. It now reads:

You are at a page that does not exist yet. To create an article on this topic, type in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button. Your addition to the encyclopedia will be visible immediately, so if you just want to test how things work, please do that in the sandbox.
Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See What Wikipedia is not for more guidance. Articles in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.

I've also create a rough draft of a simpler guide to use instead of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not—one which concentrates on the most common reasons why things end up on VfD.

Thoughts? Dpbsmith 23:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Maybe a mention that copying someone else's text is out of the question as well? -Seth Mahoney 23:57, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
I'd hoped that was sort of covered already by the notice beneath the Save Page button, "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" Dpbsmith 00:04, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
But I've now put a note about in the guide. I made it a big, bold Do not whereas all the others are please do nots! Dpbsmith 00:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merci, monsieur. I like the change a lot. And good idea about the guide; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not can be confusing. I realise that with a freely-editable, community project that vandalism, vanity pages, and other stupidity will always be a problem, but we can at least try to cut down on it. blankfaze | •­• 00:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC

Doubled content

The content of this page was just doubled. I've tried to fix it, please let me know if I mangled anybody's edits. RickK 06:28, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your first article

This is the proposed guide I mentioned earlier. Please do edit it and discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:Your first article. The intent is that a link to this article will replace the current link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the new article text. That is,

Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more guidance. Articles in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.

will become

Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See Wikipedia:Your first article for more guidance. Articles in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.

The goal of the article is to deflect newcomers from innocently creating the commonest kinds of articles that end up on VfD. I will only link to it if there is consensus that it is actually for that specific purpose than Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Dpbsmith 14:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Since mentioning this on the mailing list, here, and in the Village Pump I've gotten a (small) number of helpful edits—thanks, Fennec, Gtrmp, Anthony DiPierro, and JRR Trollkien—a couple of encouraging remarks and no objections. So I guess I'll go ahead. Dpbsmith 14:00, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Duplication

NOTE: THIS PAGE WAS DUPLICATED SOMETIME DURING THE DAY OF JUNE 9TH. IF YOUR EDITS WERE LOST, PLEASE RETYPE THEM. RickK 22:06, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

This has happened again at 00:10 (UTC) [1]. I think this automatic edit conflict merging is becoming more trouble than it's worth. Angela. 02:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes yes yes! While there is plenty I like about the new interface, the return to full-page VfD editing is not one of them. Denni 20:44, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
This happened a couple times under the old format. Is it really the fault of the new software?--Jiang 04:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This happened a couple of times under the old format and software. This is happening a couple of times a day now. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is a bug that predates the new software - Sourceforge #949323. The reason it's happening more than before the upgrade is simply that everybody's editing the big page, and getting slow responses when they submit their changes. (It's happened again, by the way - the page is a right mess, and I need dinner.) - IMSoP 18:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Returning to one page per discussion

I've tried the {{Template:Ed}} and Cyrius tried {{Template:Deletion}}. We have no trouble showing the discussion, but can't make the "click here to add to the discussion" link work. Both systems work fine for the first one or two entries on the page, but begin to fail after. There appears to be a limit to how many times you can refer to the same template (or maybe template parameter?) on one page.

I've now tried a completely different process using Germany Must Parish as an example. It seems to work. The downside is that you go to the page in reader mode - you have to make a second click to edit the page. Any thoughts or builds? Rossami 22:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is a limit (off the top of my head I think it's five) to the number of times one can refer to the same template on the same page. Some folks from fr.wikipedia were complaining on the tech mailing list about this a few days ago, and I think Tim explained that it's a safety measure, to limit the denial of service possibilities to which unrestricted template instanciation could be put. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the past two days, several people have asked about how the Template process is working on VfD. For continuity, I've answered on my Talk page. Rossami

I believe I know how - make an external link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/ARTICLE_NAME&action=edit and voila, the problem is solved. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The only drawback is that special characters like an apostrophe have to be replaced with the correct hexadecimal equivalent. Johnleemk | Talk 06:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hm...another is that this seriously screws up the ToC. =( Johnleemk | Talk 06:17, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vfd too long

Even on my DSL, it takes like 30 seconds to load the whole Vfd Page...time for a cleanup? Ilyanep 00:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest we do about it? -- Cyrius|✎ 04:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Now we've split it into vfd (up to 5 days) and vfd old (over 5 days). We should split it further. Wikipedia has grown so much that it's no longer worth trying to fit it into one page. Bring the discussion elsewhere will just force people to click too many times. --Jiang 04:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
After a lot of conversion to Template style and clean up of duplicates, I've got this page down from well over 300 k to right at 100 k. After the roll-off of the 9 June entries (and a few more conversions), it is again below 70k (at least for a few minutes). It will still take some time to call each of the templates, but this should be faster. Can you test it? Rossami 01:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This still doesn't fix the excessive scrolling problem. I still think this page should be halved. Comments? --Jiang 23:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On that point, I disagree with you. Yes, there is a lot of scrolling but that is a necessary price for being able to keep track of all discussions (which I consider an essential requirement for me to effectively participate). With the Template approach, at least you only have to load it once (and scroll through it once) because you can add your comments to the discussion using "Open in New Window". Rossami 14:50, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mdashes

Why are mdashes not reconciling on this page? RickK

  • What do you mean "not reconciling"? Rossami
    • Insead of seeing the dashes, I'm seeing "mdash&". RickK 04:27, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Look OK to me. — Chameleon 11:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No problems here with mdashes, as long as they're coded right. What browser/OS you using? — jredmond 12:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Now it seems to be okay. But it was happening all night last night. RickK 20:07, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, because of the mdashes, the "it's entry on that page" links from Template:vfd no longer work. Can an admin please rectify that? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:38, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for a different way of doing VFD

It seems to me that there are several problems that interrelate:

  • The discussion pages are too long.
  • People vote on pages that they haven't read.
  • It is hard to find the discussion on specific pages.

Wikipedia already has the solution -- discussion pages. Why not have the vote about deleting a page on the discussion page of THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION? The Votes for deletion page could be a list/summary of what pages are being considered and/or the results the votes. I'm new to this and maybe I'm not understanding some reason why this wouldn't make things easier.

Also, it seems to me that there should be clearer criteria for deleting pages, such as Vanity Page, Dictionary Definition, NPOV impossible, etc... One of criteria should be mentioned when the article gets put on the list, AND, people should state there reasons for or against by stating the CRITERIA that applies with arguments supporting their view. As a new wikipedian, I just don't see the method and reasoning behind many people's votes.

--Samuel Wantman 08:35, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This was brought up already, but rejected because it's difficult to get a bird's eye's view of the results. It's going to be quite difficult for the sysops to constantly click just to carry out their job. Right now deletion is easy for them because once voting time is up they don't have to do anything except delete the page and remove the appropriate entry from VfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As a slightly modified version, why not put the discussion on [[Talk:Article name/Delete]] rather than as a subpage of VfD? Then the VfD discussion doesn't have to be moved if the article is kept, and you can still see all the discussions on VfD itself. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 04:13, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
I just had a thought. The new transclusion system allows you to include any page as if it were a Template. So why not use a Talk sub-page instead of creating a Mediawiki page? Then the discussion could be held on the appropriate Talk sub-page, which people could add to their watch-list, and the results would be displayed for all to see here. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 08:15, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no difference between discussing the issue at [[VfD/Article]] or at [[Article/Vfd]]. Either way, the discussion can be watchlisted directly and at the end of the discussion period, the discussion page must be linked to the article's Talk page. Rossami

Proposed change in Wikipedia:Your first article

I think the article is too long now.

I'm thinking about drastically shortening the section on "local interest" articles by removing the examples and rewriting the paragraph as follows.

  • Local-interest articles. These are articles about places like schools, or streets that are of interest to a relatively small number of people such as alumni or people who live nearby. Try to show how the place is special, and different from tens of thousands of similar places. Consider waiting until you have something significant to say about the place before starting an article about it.

Thoughts? Dpbsmith 23:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template for new articles

Hi! I have noticed that adding a new article to VfD is quite time consuming: you have to type the page name 3 times. So, instead, the following template could be created:

====[[{{{article}}}]] — [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{{article}}}|Add to this discussion]]====
 {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{{article}}}}}

If this became Template:vfddiscussion, you could then list a new article simply by doing:

{{subst:vfddiscussion|article=Main Page}}

And all the markup is magically added. Thoughts? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 17:10, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Does this run into the same restriction against multiple Template calls that killed the {{Template:Ed}} and {{Template:Deletion}} approaches? (See Finlay McWalter's comments in above.) Rossami
I just tested this briefly, and it seems like it'd work. The 5-template limit seems only to apply for {{msg:x}} or {{x}}, but not {{subst:x}}, because that gets expanded at save time into the actual text—come the next edit, it's no longer a template call. (I could be wrong here, though...) — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 17:54, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the parameter isn't substituted, you instead just get links (in this case) to the non-existent Template:article. See m:Help:Template#subst. 19:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
Are there really users typing the article name even once, instead of copying it from the article heading and paste it three times? -- Jerzy(t) 01:04, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC) Isn't retyping the punishment that they deserve for not pasting? -- User:yzreJ You shut up, you don't get to comment. --Jerzy(t) -- Yeah, as if you could stop me. -- User:yzreJ Hmmm! --Jerzy(t)
I like this approach. Copy-and-paste is cool and all, but can lead to problems with spaces, overwrite,etc. This template is fool proof. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:59, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Section edit off by about 25 items

Clicking on the "[edit]" link at the right is presently yielding an edit of a section about 25 headings earlier. This is normally due to broken headings: * headings transcluded via a template (don't ever put a heading in a template) * headings that don't have the same number of =-signs before and after * headings followed immediately by an HTML-style p tag (a new one me, as of this eve on /Old).

I'm going search for the guilty headings, but someone should also be considering why there should be so many of them recently. Is there a bug in one of the two add-an-article methods' instructions?
 --Jerzy(t) 01:04, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Sorry, cockpit problem. -Jerzy(t) 01:11, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Do we delete Talk pages without deleting the article?

I have just noticed Talk:Emma Watson which has been created by an anonymous "boy from philippines" (according to the edit summary) and consists of a message of encouragement to Emma, who is drastically unlikely ever to see it :-) This is the article in full (transcluded using subst BTW—see my suggestion above):

dear emma

if i have something i can say is you are a great actress be pround to your self do not for get god in any you coz he help you time of crisis just take care always bye

I was wondering what the policy is in this case: do we simply blank the Talk page, or do we delete it properly so it turns up as a red link again? --Phil | Talk 08:22, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why not just leave it as is? It seems harmless enough. If he had written something truly offensive, such as "Emma Watson is a (so-and-so)", I'd be in favor of reverting in such a way that it does not appear in histories (which would in effect be deleting back to a red link, no?) --Woggly 08:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VfD * 2

We seem to have got VfD doubled somehow - anyone any good at sorting this out? Secretlondon 19:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

locked

VFD is appearing locked to me. Is an admin doing a major overhaul or something? If so, someone should put a notice on the top of the page. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:43, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have contacted Meelar. He says there was some sort of error in which parts of the page were duplicated, and the page should be fixed relatively soon. Marcus2 21:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Avoiding upsets

In regard to SECOS, it seems that posting articles close to a user's heart tends to upset some people, causing them get angry and threaten vandalise the wikpeida. I think we should be more cautious about putting pages on VFD. We don't want to upset people and scare people from the open nature of the Wikipedia. I also think that votes for deletion should only count against the article, not the author. Gazwim 09:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC).

I think this particular discussion illustrates why the guidelines for deletion are so important. Perhaps we should add something to the effect of not responding in kind when others go outside the guidelines.
The function of VfD is to decide whether or not to delete a page. A page should only be listed if the person listing it is elibible to vote themselves and is recommending deletion. A vote should adhere as closely as possible to the guideline, which already says that a concise justification for a vote should always be posted. A comment should only be posted if it is intended to be helpful to others in deciding how to vote. I violate this last principle myself from time to time, I'm not a machine, but it should not be done lightly or too regularly. Andrewa 17:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)