Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive of September 2003

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

format discussion

While the intentions behind the new format were good, I think splitting the page up, either topically or chronologically, is not a good idea because it increases the number of places that I have to check to verify if a particular page has already been added to VfD. We should also avoid subpages for various structural reasons. So how do we keep this page from growing too big? Here are some thoughts:

  • Reduce the number of days. I have proposed this before and maybe we should just vote on it. I would say 4-5 days should be more than enough. (discussed further at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time)
  • Actually make a decision when the time has elapsed. We currently list pages from August 27 -- why does nobody take care of those? Perhaps our guidelines are not clear enough on what to do in controversial cases.
Our guidelines are clear in such cases. Thanks for helping me clear out 8k. Now what are we going to do about the other 19? Wait weeks?
  • Move long discussions to talk pages and link to them from here. This has been done before and should become a standard practice.
  • Be bold in moving discussions where it's obvious that the page will not be deleted because of established policy. In these cases, move the discussion to the user talk page of the user who asked for deletion.
  • Come up with a standard format for "me too" and "object" votes. Maybe something like this:

Junk page

  • Delete: —Eloquence (reason), User:Foo (reason)
  • Keep:
  • Longer comments:

These are my proposals. Please add yours and comments regarding the above below. —Eloquence 02:29, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)


I have reverted Eloquence's changes. I was totally against the pages being subdivided but it has worked superbly. Eloquence unilaterally decided to ignore that and redirected everything to the main page, producing a main page that is yet again two times beyond the limit that is accessible to users of IE. When I was on IE, there was three months when I could not access the VfD page because of its size. That is a disgraceful situation. No user should find they cannot access one of the main wiki pages. If an alternative system is in place to make the main page smaller than 32K, then you can put everything on the main page. But as of now, no such system is in place and to unilaterally show contempt for every IE user by constructing a VfD page that is unusable to many on wiki is an outrage. People deserve some respect for coming up with a solution that gets around that problem by sibdividing the VfD page. I was against it but it has worked extremely well, to my surprise. Because of that, I think Eloquence's behaviour grossly wrong and quite frankly the two fingers to all those who have worked to come up with a workable solution. I am reverting and will continue to do so. Only when a workable alternative is in place can we conceive of a united VfD page. FearÉIREANN 02:44, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Once again, you reveal your inability to discuss matters instead of engaging in edit wars. Right after my edits you reverted them instead of using the talk page, and now, instead of trying to resolve the issue in a civil discussion, you announce your intention to revert again to your style. Unfortunately I have no alternative to reverting your changes as they happen because otherwise they will be added upon by others and I have to go through the process of restoring structural sanity again.
The limits of various browsers are discussed at Wikipedia:Browser page size limits. According to that page, up to date versions of Internet Explorer do not have the page size limits. Now, knowing that you use a Mac, it could be that you were using the Mac version of IE, which uses a different codebase. In that case, however, the obvious solution is to switch to a better browser, of which there are many for the Mac. The majority of Windows users does not seem to be affected by this problem and virtually all modern browsers don't have the limit.
As for how "unilateral" this was, the original format style change was unilateral and there is no consensus support for it (in fact, several regulars have expressed strong opposition). In such cases, our policy is to either revert to the previous solution or to find a solution by consensus or to hold a vote on the preferred solution. As long as you do not try to resolve the conflict by any of these means, you act in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Not for the first time, I might add.—Eloquence 03:01, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

We really, really, really cannot afford to have an edit war between a sysop and a developer over the format of VfD. -- Cyan 02:54, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

  • I was against the changes at first but they have worked extremely well and I find it easier to follow now. It is much easier to deal with the pages on separate days. I also support reducing the number of days (anything over 3 is fine with me). The policy on what to do with contraversial items definitely need clarifying. I tend to ignore them and just deal with the obvious ones when clearing out a particular day. I don't agree with moving discussions to talk pages. They will simply be ignored there. The advantage of the split into days is that it doesn't matter if discussions are lengthy. Angela 02:57, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I also much prefer the new format. I find it is much easier to navigate to the articles I want to comment on. -- Cyan 03:17, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, you've got good ideas but this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Let's make VfD editable again while we hash it out? - Hephaestos 03:10, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Tell this to JtD -- he is the one reverting to a format that many here oppose and that was never established in consensus in the first place. It is only natural that now the people will comment who prefer the new format -- just like when the format was changed, the ones who commented were the ones opposing it. The simple reality is that there is no consensus on which format to use. In such situations we can either strive for an alternative consensus solution -- like some of the ones proposed above -- or vote on the matter. I personally do not think a vote is necessary so I will not organize one, but if you think one is necsesary, please go ahead and start.—Eloquence 03:22, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)
The difference was that many who opposed your behaviour didn't challenge you on it. I did and will. If you want a vote, fine. But until then leave things the way they are. For all the faults, they at least are workable. Your solution is not. FearÉIREANN 03:31, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Have you actually read what I wrote above regarding the browser size issue? I would prefer it if you tried to understand my arguments instead of engaging in pointless edit wars.—Eloquence 03:34, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)
Not one single person has supported your behaviour here. Not one. Everyone here and elsewhere has criticised it. You decided to unilaterally to change a working system. I am simply reverting to a version that has been used successfully and which has been praised by many since its adoption. YOU started an edit war. YOU can finish it when you want. But I will revert 100 times if necessary to the version used by the community. This is Wikipedia, not Erikipedia. Stop showing such contempt for everyone else. FearÉIREANN 03:39, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I repeat: I too was against the break-up, but it works. Keeping everything on one page doesn't. As to the comment " the obvious solution is to switch to a better browser, of which there are many for the Mac", I personally detest IE but nowhere on wiki does it say that wiki is only usable for people with certain browsers. It is outrageous to suggest that we treat users of some browsers as second class citizens. If some browsers can't go beyond 32K, then NO PAGE should go beyond 32K, period. As to the supposed general unhappiness, Hep, Angela and Cyan have all endorsed the changes made, at least until we can come up with a better system for VfD. RickK has appealed to you to stop reverting pages. It is frankly outrageous for you to play God and decide that you want a united VfD page, with the message 'if your browser can't go beyond 32K, thats your hard luck. Either change your browser or be prepared for second class wiki-citizenship. Nobody, even a develop, has a right to behave like that. If you have a problem with the current system, discuss it with people. Don't play God and decide that what you want is what wiki wants. FearÉIREANN 03:31, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If some browsers can't go beyond 32K, then NO PAGE should go beyond 32K, period.

Your main argument that a majority of users is locked out was just shot down. Now you argue for the poor minority who uses outdated browsers. However, even these people can edit the page using section editing -- a feature which I implemented for that specific purpose. Regardless, it may surprise you, but I actually agree with you that pages should average around the 32K limit -- but the emphasis is on should. There are quite a few pages larger than 32K -- see Wikipedia:Longpages. This includes Current events at the end of a month and many other pages which you edit regularly. There are reasonable solutions for addressing the VfD size problems, and the problem itself is not particularly urgent since nobody is locked out by it and even for most of those few who can't edit 32K pages and want to edit the whole page for some reason there's a very simple solution: Upgrade your browser.—Eloquence

Look James, since you love anecdotal evidence so much, here are a few quotes right from this page:

  • "the current system killed my interest in participating on vfd almost to nil" -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick
  • "I especially like the part where someone made a unilateral decision to drastically alter the whole page and then botched the job." -- anon
  • "I'm not saying it's unredeemably terrible, and something needs to be done about the length of the Vfd page, but I don't think that this is it. ... I've stopped participating on the VfD page because of the new format." --Dante Alighieri
  • "The new VfD format stinks ?the cure is almost worse than the disease. Splitting everything into separate pages by day is a very poor solution...." -- Daniel Quinlan
  • "I'd thought this might turn out well... I was wrong. The current format is not working." -- Jake
  • "I have to say that I'm not fond of this new style." -- Martin

Now, there are obviously also a few people who like the new format, maybe just as many, maybe more, maybe much less. But it was unilaterally introduced against these and more protests by others and has driven away people from reading and contributing to VfD. This is not how things work around here and you know it. So please let's do this the community way, shall we?—Eloquence 03:53, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

FCOL Erik, stop acting the ass. I upgraded my browser months ago AND I would much rather have VfD on one page. But wiki policy is to be bold in editing pages. You love being bold in doing what you want, but resent when other people do the same. It is crazy to try to put change a system that is working to one that patiently doesn't. If you have a better solution, produce it. But in the meantime stop giving the two fingers to all of those who have worked the new system successfully. BTW many of those you listed above now use the new system successfully and have dropped their complaints. You can try to change things your way as often as you want. I will continue to revert as often as required. This is a decision to be taken by the community, not you in one of your messianic moods. FearÉIREANN 04:07, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you have a better solution, produce it. Please see my arguments above. BTW many of those you listed .. have dropped their complaints. Who specifically?—Eloquence
  • How about reverting to whatever it was this morning as a TEMPORARY state and taking a 7 day cease-fire. During that time everyone can make a concerted effort to come up with a new format, discuss it, try it out on demo pages, and vote on it. If after 7 days someone thinks not enough progress has been made then its easy to jump right back into it. How about it? Continuing in this manner is going to end up with one or both really frustrated. Would hate to see that. Ark30inf 04:16, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Lir and Michael and the Stick are all laughing their asses off right now. I, on the other hand, am going to bed. If you dipshits aren't done by the time I wake up, I'm not coming back. -- Cyan 04:19, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BuddhistInside has joined in fanning the edit war flames. Why make up ridiculous articles when you can fan the flames of an edit war between two major users on a major page eh?Ark30inf 04:27, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
With his beloved heterosexual articles as doomed as a snowball in the Sahara he has to find something to play with! :-) FearÉIREANN
Piss off Ark30inf. JTDirl's "improvements" wiped out my comments on the page, are you supporting censoring me too now? -BuddhaInside
That would not be fair since this version was established against protest. The conflict started when the new version was established and therefore that's the format we should revert to before engaging in debate.—Eloquence 04:32, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)


There is no "fruitless conflict, Eloquence. We have been doing VfD like this for weeks. If you had a problem with it, you could have voiced it before the change, rather than unilaterally deciding it's not a good idea, while at the same time having no rational alternative. - Hephaestos 04:20, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please point out how the alternatives I have suggested are not "rational" and how the points I have made about the current situation not locking out users are not valid.—Eloquence
What you have suggested is perfectly rational. What you are doing is not. - Hephaestos 04:26, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Please explain why my reverting to the state of the page in its pre-conflict format is not rational while your reverting to the stage in its post-conflict format is rational.—Eloquence 04:32, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)
That's the last straw, Eloquence. The whole time I've been reverting the pages to pre-conflict format, evidently you seem to have forgotten that you're the one who started the conflict! Honest to god, who is using your computer today, because it isn't you. - Hephaestos 04:34, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
As I have explained, and as is evidenced by the comments quoted above, the conflict started when the format was changed. It was simply not reverted because that took considerable effort given the large number of pages to be merged, so that's what I did today. And that's the format the page should stay in until we have reached consensus, or majority, on what to do next. I think you are confused by the time delay between the initial change and the reversion, but this delay does not affect the underlying community principles which we use whenever there's a conflict about the format a page should be in.—Eloquence

Why is it so important to stand on ceremony, procedure and bureaucratic bullshit that it's necessary to take a system that works better and replace it with one that works hardly at all? Why is it necessary to take matters into one's own hands rather than bring the subject up in a rational manner for further discussion? "Hey folks, this system that got passed illegally works a lot better than the previous one, but I have an idea for one that will work better still..." - Hephaestos 04:43, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Leave it where it was before JTDirl started this edit war and discuss it then. -BuddhaInside

Vote for deletion

I nominate Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for deletion. It's causing nothing but trouble. -- Wapcaplet 04:40, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC), BL

But if we deleted VfD, would that not delete our deletion, and so undelete ourselves??? :-) FearÉIREANN 04:59, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Now that the edit war seems to be dying down, I would like to direct attention back at my original proposals for dealing with the problem which do not require the subdivision of the page:

How to limit the VfD page size

While the intentions behind the new format were good, I think splitting the page up, either topically or chronologically, is not a good idea because it increases the number of places that I have to check to verify if a particular page has already been added to VfD. We should also avoid subpages for various structural reasons. So how do we keep this page from growing too big? Here are some thoughts:

  • Reduce the number of days. I have proposed this before and maybe we should just vote on it. I would say 4-5 days should be more than enough.
  • Actually make a decision when the time has elapsed. We currently list pages from August 27 -- why does nobody take care of those? Perhaps our guidelines are not clear enough on what to do in controversial cases.
Our guidelines are clear in such cases. Thanks for helping me clear out 8k. Now what are we going to do about the other 19? Wait weeks?
  • Move long discussions to talk pages and link to them from here. This has been done before and should become a standard practice.
  • Be bold in moving discussions where it's obvious that the page will not be deleted because of established policy. In these cases, move the discussion to the user talk page of the user who asked for deletion.
  • Come up with a standard format for "me too" and "object" votes. Maybe something like this:

Junk page

  • Delete: —Eloquence (reason), User:Foo (reason)
  • Keep:
  • Longer comments:


These are my proposals. Please add yours and comments regarding the above below. —Eloquence 02:29, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on talk pages

I have a simple solution:

  1. For any new item on VfD, ALL discussions should be placed in the talk page of the item with a link from VfD. i.e. We make the previous suggestion a standard practice NOW.
  2. Let's use the new format for a while. In the meantime, we copy all the discussions to the talk page of the item.
  3. After finish all the moves, we don't need the new format anymore.

-wshun 04:39, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to move all the discussions to the talk pages, only the long ones, as was done before. Moving all discussions means that it is no longer possible to get a quick overview of where opinions stand unless work is done to provide redundant summaries. Having all one one page is really very comfortable, but the size problem should be addressed; see my comments above on possible solutions.—Eloquence 05:09, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)
I welcome Wshun's constructive advice. Would that others were as constructive. However I think that discussing VfDs on talk page is ill-advised. When I some time ago added in date headings to the VfD, I looked back to see how things operated on the VfD page. One thing struck me. The worst method of dealing wth VfD was on the talk page. They were the pages that got left on the VfD pages longest and about which there was least agreement. The trouble was that the discussion on the talk page got swamped by all sorts of other discussions on the article, with the keep/delete debate dying or being buried on the page. Those sort of pages ended up on VfD for weeks, because no-one ever reached a conclusion. I suggested the creation of specific Delete Debate pages, that were only on the issue of deletion, and which were time-focused. But then I'm always suggesting ideas for the VfD page; even the breaking up of the page into dates was proposed before being done. Maybe I should follow the Eloquence approach of simply doing what I want and revert anything I haven't approved and then accuse everyone else of causing edit wars. FearÉIREANN 04:54, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


So you are suggestion something like K512/Vote for deletion? Good idea also. -wshun 05:03, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If we have such a system, it should be at Talk:K512/Vote for deletion - subpages, and discussion, are not allowed in article namespace. Martin 23:22, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah. That was the idea. So that only the short debates should be on VfD. Debates that are heated and protracted could be moved to a link page directly off VfD. I suggested the idea elsewhere and it was used in the List of heterosexuals debate and worked a treat. The entire debate occured on one page that just discussed that issue and not related issues. It was obvious when the debate was started and when it as a result would finish. So the debate was strictly time limited. I wasn't a fan of the breaking up the VfD page by date, preferring my suggestion, but decided to try it out and after a couple of days getting used to it found that it worked far better than I would possibly have imagined. FearÉIREANN 05:36, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(start my solution with Wapcaplet's suggestion! -wshun)

I think it is a very bad idea to move discussion to talk pages. That means that instead of checking one VfD page or 7 subpages, you have to check dozens of individual pages to see the discussions. That is completely unworkable. I have also added a summary of comments made since the new format was implemented, which include a number of alternative suggestions. Angela 05:28, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Angela: you're a star, working on that excellent summary of past suggestions. I recommend that everyone reads it to avoid flogging any supine equines that may be in the area. :) Martin 23:24, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Down to 31K

There you go - we're down to 31K. That's what a little cleaning up and moving of long discussions for pages that probably will not be deleted can achieve.—Eloquence 05:33, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

special archived discussion?

Is the "special archived discussion" really appropriate here? Seems to me that it be better to link to the list of hets debate from wikipedia talk:deletion policy and wikipedia:list - the top of this page is cluttered enough, in my opinion. Martin 10:00, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

It is only a temporary solution to a page that otherwise would be orphaned. If and when more such pages are used to focus debates, rather than the totally unsatisfactory moved to talk mess, a special linked page can be created on which such pages are archived. If I put it in the page Martin mentioned I would have been accused of trying to hide the page, as most users do not visit the wikipedia talk:deletion policy and the wikipedia:list pages . In putting it where it can be seen, one ends up accused of cluttering a page. Sometimes on wiki you just can't win, no matter how open and transparent one tries to be. *sigh* FearÉIREANN 14:38, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
Well, I moved the link. Let's see who accuses me of being untransparent? :-) Martin
It is a deletion debate and like deletion debates should be archived on a page accessible on the VfD. In fact I think all past deletion debates on talk pages should be moved, with each having its own archive. That is another good reason to put deletion debates on a single page, rather than spreading them willy nilly all over the page, sometimes deleted if the talk page is lost, othertimes buried in a talk page archive. Someone may want at some stage to read through old debates if producing a history of wiki. We need to follow high archival standards to keep those records. Keeping wiki's history is important. FearÉIREANN 23:03, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Or we could keep a (dare I say it?) list of pointers to those archives on a subpage of VfD. That way, people looking for specific archives know where to find links, and people cruising the talk pages will find the relevant deletion debates. The glory of lists is that pages spread willy nilly can be traced from a central node. -- Cyan 21:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Already done, Cyan. I created a page linked to the VfD page called Wikipedia:Archived delete debates on which I have placed the archive of the List of heterosexuals and links to other /delete pages created by others. I think the logical policy to follow is to hold all delete pages that are off the VfD on a special delete page rather than the talk page. That way, if an article is deleted and its talk page goes too, the delete debate subpage is preserved in a link there. We have lost months of debates on deletions where those debates took place on talk pages that were then deleted with the main article. This way we will have an archived record that people writing the history of wiki in years to come can access, as well as general users interested to follow a debate. FearÉIREANN 23:13, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

32K - paper tiger?

I'm sure this discussion belongs on some other page, but can someone give a rough estimate of the number of users out there who have problem with 32k+ pages? I mean, we know what browsers people use... are we fighting a paper tiger?

Furthermore, while I respect JT's assertion that we shouldn't exclude people in principle, when it comes down to it, it's just not really feasible. What about people who can't read, shouldn't we have a text to speech engine? What about people with text-only browsers, shouldn't we have a detailed synopsis of all pictures? What about dumb people, shouldn't we have easier to understand articles? What about people with no internet access, shouldn't we have a book form? (hehe) What about people...

Anyway, I was just wondering. --Dante Alighieri 17:07, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the size issue is one related only to browsers. The speed of accessing the page for those on dial-up also needs to be taken into consideration. Angela 17:15, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
32K is not a big webpage... if dial-up users find opening a WP page is particularly slow (compared to other sites) it's because of the strain on our poor server not page size, I think. Pete 14:40, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  1. People who can't read probably have a text-to-speech engine on their PC. But we should design Wikipedia so as to be maximally accessible to such people.
  2. We should have a detailed synopsis of all pictures. This starts with alt text (alternate text for images), but further details can be placed on the image description page.
  3. Dumb people? Well, if they have problems with the English language, there's simple:wiki, right? But in any case, wikipedia articles should be easy-to-understand wherever that's possible.
  4. Book form in progress. In the mean time we have a printable version. But you can't edit a printed version...

Martin 08:46, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes you can edit a printed version. Just make sure it's printed in pencil and sold with a free eraser. ;) Tannin
Agreed, there are probably very few such users, percentage-wise... see the Google Zeitgeist page about halfway down to see what browsers people have. It is difficult though, because a small percentage of a huge number of people can still be quite a few people. The current de facto situation where (almost all) articles are sub 32k and a few (essentially just VP and VfD) non-article pages are >32k seems reasonable. Old browser users can still read these pages and edit using section editing. Pete 14:40, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ridicule

Is there a requirement that people who disagree with pages added to the VfD page ridicule those who add them? Am I going about this the wrong way? RickK 03:27, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It does seem to be. Of course, if that doesn't have the desired effect, you can create malicious pages about the person in question instead. Angela 05:57, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Do you have something specific in mind? I see a touch of ridicule of articles (eg KF: "five Freds and nothing else is just too ridiculous") in the recent batches, but none of people. Are you referring to Kowloonese and Oliver's comments on your nomination of high tech baking? Martin 08:58, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, there's Morven's comment, "IMO, we spend too much time worrying about whether people are 'important' enough to be in Wikipedia.". RickK 01:39, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think, by "people", Morven means "biography-article of people", not "Wikipedians like Rick". Was that the ridicule you were referring to? --Menchi 01:52, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I'm quite sure that he wasn't meaning "Wikipedians like Rick", but it still comes across as an attack on the person who felt the need to include the article on the page. RickK 03:09, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The comment was meant as a general statement and not directed at any individual in specific. There was probably a better place to put it (here, among others), and I apologise and hope nobody took it as an attack.
I do believe there is a tendency to be over-hasty in listing biographical articles for deletion and I will continue to weigh in against their deletion when I feel it justified. In many cases a few minutes' searching around Google gives ample cause to consider the person of historical importance, and sometimes this information is even clearly in the article. It does seem to me that some people treat the criteria for inclusion as 'fame' (see the frequent use of 'non-famous' as the justification for deletion) whereas I believe a less stringent standard is appropriate, such as 'notable in their field'. --Morven 22:33, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Another example is the comments on how people are too lazy to write an article themselves if they list a stub. With regards to the malicious pages; I did have specific examples in mind but I would rather not list them here. Angela 01:50, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
Lazy is too strong, but it does appear to me that the consensus is that stubbiness in itself is not justification for deletion. Such pages I don't think should be being listed in VfD. That people don't read 'Pages that need work' isn't IMO cause to list them on VfD in the hope that people will work on them. --Morven 22:33, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Stubs shouldn't be listed on wikipedia:pages needing attention either: that's what the boilerplate from wikipedia:find or fix a stub is for. Martin 22:40, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Preamble

moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions

Inter-VfD links

moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions

rough consensus

Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators has discussion on what we mean when we say that pages should be deleted as a result of consensus. Please express your views there. Martin 22:51, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Proposal to change the Votes for Deletion articles format

I edited a little bit of the last part of the page. I think it becomes easier to skim over and edit a section if everyone uses "===subheaders===" like that. BL 17:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please don't make huge changes like that without discussing them first or everyone will assume that is the way it is done and copy it and it will be very hard to reverse it. The TOC will be absolutely pointless if you do this. The section per day gives a small enough section to edit and you are often going to want to comment on all the day's items, rather than specific items, which you would not be able to do if every item had a subheader. Angela 17:37, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Now reverted to original format. See [1] for BL's version. Angela


I also reverted the "new" format back (Angela, we were doing it sumultaneously). I assumed one person started going wrong by accident, and everyone else just followed. The old format is better, easier to scan and easier to track entries by date. - Marshman 18:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You sure like to revert my edits dont you Angela? :-/ How about if we try my little idea for a few days, just like splitting up the VfD page was tried for a while, and then we can decide? Just three persons opinion isn't enough imho. BL 21:16, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's nothing personal BL. You may think it is a slight change but I view it as a major one. Trying to do it without agreement of anyone else will lead to the same sort of edit wars as VfD had the last time this happened - ie when Someone else changed the format and again when Eloquence changed it back. I reverted it immediately as it was a lot easier to do that than to revert once everyone starts copying the idea and thinking this is how it is done. Obviously I was not alone in recognising the problem as Marshman was trying to revert it at exactly the same time I was. Angela 21:21, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think you are wrong. The Someone else-VfD-experiment was a great success. People got a fair chance to choose and lots of people voiced their opinion. In the end nobody liked it and the VfD page got turned back after a week or so. That there was a silly edit war between two users (who I will not name) because one of them didn't interpret the "rough consensus" like everyone else did was unfortunate. But it was a good experiment. BL 21:51, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What? A lot of people liked it. Hence the ensuing edit war. Angela

Sorry BL, but I'm not convinced by your proposal. Maybe it would work better if section editing was done slightly differently, but as is, I think it'd make things cumbersome. Eg, sometimes I want to edit a whole days worth of stuff. Martin 21:40, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK. Then the score is 75-25 now. But what if Eloquence could could be convinced to make it so that editing a header would automagically make it so you also edit all sub-headers? Then both sides could be acomidated. BL 21:51, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The section editing is not the only issue here. What about the fact you can no longer have a TOC if you do this? What about the point Marshman raised of how it "easier to scan and easier to track entries" with the existing format? I don't see any advantage in doing this. Angela 22:27, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What if you come back when you've convinced Eloquence? It should only take a couple years... :) Martin 22:45, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I'm already convinced that this is the preferable behavior, I just haven't gotten around to coding it yet (it's significantly more complex than the current solution).—Eloquence 23:07, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

One thing you could do, BL, is make a copy of an out-of-date version of VfD with your proposed formatting at User:BL/proposed format for VfD. Then we can all see what a full VfD in your formatting looks like. We could also move this discussion to User talk:BL/proposed format for VfD. -- Cyan 04:00, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Or you can just look at the Swedish VfD: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sidor_som_b%F6r_raderas]]

Two things: (i) The Swedish VfD is much smaller than the English VfD -- there's the question of the usefulness of the table of contents; (ii) I don't speak Swedish, so some of the organization is lost on me. -- Cyan 02:40, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

table

What is the purpose of a silly table you seen in this page? -- Taku 21:55, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#Preamble and in particular Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion#Inter-VfD links on this very page for enlightenment! Pete 22:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


this table is not standard on all browsers, and it makes things unreadable. The text below the table appears with only one word per line, This is ugly and unusable. Please remove it. Anthère

Ok. Angela 01:23, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)