Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive of "should this page be renamed to proposed deletions?"

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.
✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

There is currently no vote taking place. Suggestions are being taken. Options are being considered. Alternatives are being pondered. Please do not attempt to start a vote without prior discussion and rough consensus on the length of such a vote, how it will be counted, what all the candidates are, and so forth. Especially don't start a vote if we don't even agree that we need it.

However, please feel free to comment.

Contents

Proposals

On a lighter note, perhaps Wikipedia:Votes for retention? Retention: Involuntary withholding of bodily wastes or secretions that are normally eliminated. Ha ha, only serious.

We may also want to change wikipedia:images for deletion, wikipedia:redirects for deletion, and wikipedia:lists for deletion.

History

The title of the "Votes for deletion" is a relic of the time when there was software-supported "voting" software on Wikipedia. Of other similar pages, (Votes for NPOVing, Votes for rewriting, etc), Votes for Deletion (VfD) is the only one still at its old title.

Issues

  • As VfD is not meant to be about votes, perhaps the title should not include the word 'votes'?
  • As less than half the pages here get deleted, perhaps it is misleading to have the word deletion in the title?
  • Can we reflect how the page is actually used, and has been used in the past?
  • Does anyone actually care enough to change it?
  • Would it be nice to keep the "fD" theme?
  • Can we distinguish this page from wikipedia:pages needing attention and other such pages?
  • "Requests" implies that you are asking someone (perhaps the community at large?) - is this good or bad?

Discussion

The "Votes for deletion" page has, as far as I know, always been called that, but I always thought it was just a name. --Oliver P. 09:02, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If there is a Votes for Deletion page, it implies an actual vote be recorded and used as a measure for deletion. Fuzheado 03:12, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We can move the page to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion, if you like - I've already said I think that would be a better name and would better reflect how the page has worked in the past. --Camembert

Suggestions have been made, at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and other places, that this page be renamed. Some suggest that VfD is not meant to be about votes, so the title should not include the word 'votes'. As less than half the pages here get deleted, perhaps it is also misleading to have the word deletion in the title. So, does anyone actually care enough to change it? And if so, what name should replace it? Angela 18:25, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have no problem with VfD, but if it must change, then it would be nice to keep the "fD" theme so RfD would be fine. Renaming it something like "Problem pages" would be bad, as it's already confusing enough with Cleanup, Pages neeeding attention, NPOV disputes, accuracy disputes, etc. Fuzheado 06:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
We definitely need something that says it's nominated for deletion. "Problem pages" would make it sound indistinct from "Pages needing attention" and half a dozen other Wikipedia:namespace pages, as Fuzheado mentioned, and would also sound confusingly like "Problem Users", which will have Wikipedians thinking a page should go on Problem Pages for the same reason a user would go on "Problem Users". "Consensus for deletion" is a much better possibility -- it emphasizes that we're trying to achieve consensus. Wiwaxia 02:27, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
People bring pages here for deletion. If there's a problem, they go to Talk. So "Deletion" should be in the title. I'm not so strong about "vote". Maybe "Deletion votes and requests". --Menchi 07:03, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I like the current title. "Requests" implies that you are asking someone. Maximus Rex 07:07, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You're asking the community. :) Martin 19:08, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Proposed deletions? Morwen 19:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I like that best so far. Daniel Quinlan 02:39, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
Ditto. Requests for deletion is also good. Martin 23:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. However, if it's too hard to move the page, it may not be worth the effort. But at the same time, I do believe it would be more accurate. Frazzydee 15:44, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Or, taking a "glass half full" approach, Wikipedia:Votes for Retention? -- Finlay McWalter 03:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, that would give a different spin on the meaning of the page. retention: Involuntary withholding of bodily wastes or secretions that are normally eliminated. Daniel Quinlan 03:12, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
I think if we rename this Wikipedia:Votes for retention we should rename Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress to Wikipedia:Ministry of Peace and Wikipedia:Problem users to Wikipedia:Ministry of Love ;) I like both Wikipedia:Proposed deletions and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion more than the current title. I'd be happy with either. --Camembert


Wikipedia:Problem users -> Wikipedia:Special users -- Finlay McWalter 14:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletions looks like it has enough support for a move, but I'm going to be cautious here. Two reasons:

  1. Moving a page with lots of page history takes a fair amount of time, judging from the village pump move
  2. This page is heavily linked from a number of places, so there's lots of spadework to be done changing boilerplate, documentation, etc.

For these reasons, I really don't want a move war here. Any suggestions for how to proceed? I'm tempted to create Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title, move this discussion here, and advertise it at the top of VfD and on the village pump. Thoughts? Martin 19:26, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. And it should be left at least another week to make sure everyone knows about it first. My only objection is that the abbreviation PD isn't as nice as VfD. :) Angela


Sounds good to me. A note to the en mailing list might be in order as well. Good luck with it... --Camembert
I would support such a move. -- Cyan 19:38, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re the name of the page. A couple of questions -

1. What is the page about? Deletions.

2. How are decisions taken? By voting.

Ipso facto, the name should be Votes for Deletion. Not nominations as the page is not voting on whether to nominate pages, as there is no nomination for deletions, simply putting them here is a nomination. What is the problem with stating what this page is about, voting on deletions? Is stating honestly what the page is about such a problem? FearÉIREANN 23:44, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As noted above, some people consider that the way VfD currently works is not a case of lots of people voting, but rather a case of lots of people expressing opinions. Martin 23:53, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Some don't like the notion of voting. It is hoped this may placate them. Angela

So, Martin could you clarify:

  1. Do votes decide whether articles are deleted or not? Yes or No.
  2. Does Wikipedia operate a voting methodology whereby a certain percentage of those voting vote for deletion before an article is deleted? Yes or No.
  3. Are articles which achieve this weighted majority for deletion deleted?
  4. Are articles which fail to achieve this weighted majority deleted?
  5. Are articles where the majority vote to keep deleted?
  6. Are articles where the weighted majority to delete kept? FearÉIREANN 00:33, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I know you were asking Martin, but I hope you don't mind me giving my answers as well.
  1. No. Say 9 people voted 'delete' and then one person who has done a complete rewrite comes and says 'keep, I've rewritten it', I might keep it, despite the appearance of 90% in opposition. Similarly, if there is a clear policy on something (like the redirects policy), votes are relatively meaningless.
  2. Officially 66%, but there's much more to it than that. Rough consensus is the alternative
  3. Not always. It depends on what the arguments against deletion are, and to some degree, who is making those arguments.
  4. Rarely if ever. 66% is pretty low anyway, and I haven't noticed any being deleted with a lower percentage than this
  5. No.
  6. Yes, frequently. Usually because the article has changed over the voting period, but also for other reasons.
Angela 00:49, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your "yes or no" is a false dichotomy and your questions suffer the have you stopped beating your wife problem. I will answer in my own way.

1: Opinions expressed on VfD are one component in deciding whether articles are deleted. Edits made to the article in question are another factor. Our pre-existing policies, particularly those with near unanimous support, are another. Edits to related talk pages are another. Opinions expressed on the mailing list are another. It is not the case, in general, that opinions expressed on VfD alone decide. It is also not the case, in general, that opinions expressed on VfD are irrelevant.

2: Wikipedia operates according to sysop judgement of "rough consensus". Some sysops choose to use a vote-like methodology to help them reach a judgement of rough consensus. Some sysops may choose to rely solely on a vote-like methodology, though I don't know of any that do. Some sysops choose to use other means of determining or obtaining rough consensus.

I believe your questions 3-6 are answered by my above answers. Martin 00:54, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:-) Martin, you are a scream. How do you vote in general elections? Sorry but I do not accept the validity of your proposed electoral mechanism. I am going to redefine the question in the way I want. Please read the 8 page explanatory note, attached, plus also my link to my website. Your methodology, Martin, as the AKFD fiasco shows, is incapable of taking elementary decisions and you so end up making mountains out of molehills and confusing the bejaysus out of everyone that people give up. Are you trying to turn VfD into one big AKFD mess? It is clear that the primary purpose of the VfD page is to vote on deletions. That is its primary reason. However it offers a means for people, if they are so inclined, to rescue a page if they feel they can rewrite it. Any iota of common sense suggests that it is perfectly OK for it to have a short title which everyone on WP recognises. It is ludicrous to tamper with an instantly recognisable title to create a more complex one when the problem with the page isn't its name but its size. Come on Martin, be realistic. Or maybe you'd prefer the accurate title Votes for proposed and possible deletions, unless a sysop doesn't do a deletion or the article is rewritten or we can get a consensus developed that makes the article salvageable, in which the case the article won't get deleted. God help us if you ever took over Coca Cola - you'd probably rename it Coke - the soft drink not made from coca but from a secret recipe that we are damned not going to tell you the ingredients of. Or took control of the US constitution - George W. Bush would become President who was outvoted in the popular vote but got elected thanks to the Supreme Court and because of who his Daddy was, Bush. And going by the AKFD fiaso, a page on Bush would probably have 500 redirects and 900 talk pages about deleting the talk pages, along with a link to the Votes for proposed and possible deletions, unless a sysop doesn't do a deletion or the article is rewritten or we can get a consensus developed that makes the article salvageable, in which the case the article won't get deleted page. Please Martin find something useful to do besides this renaming nonsense. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:31, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'll try to be simple: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is a misleading title because pages are not deleted on the basis of votes. That's a simple fact. Now, forgetting all about the AKFD business and your problems with Fraulein Dice, how is Wikipedia:Proposed deletions worse than the current title? --Camembert

Fraulein? I thought it was Frau!!! :-) One word: immediacy. Anyone who has ever tried to get decisions taken in businesses, academia or whereever knows that the single worst thing you can do is describe the process in indecisive language. Wikipedia:Proposed deletions embodies that. Votes for Deletion suggests an immediate, ungoing decision that could be taken any time so you'd better get your ass there quickly if you want to influence it. Proposed works as a "neutralising qualifier" that suggests 'lets have a chat about a proposal which may or may not happen.' Do that and the next question will be, 'so what's the rush in deleting things in five or seven days if we are only discussing a proposal? 'What's the rush in going to the page if they are only discussing a proposal'. Using 'proposed' as a qualifier makes the page sound like a slow-moving, ambing along talk-fest. If you want to stop the page becoming a long drawn-out talkfest, you need (i) a decisive methodology for reaching decisions, (ii) a regular clear-out of candidates from the page, (iii) a nomenclature that spurs people to action, not makes it sound like a 'lets bore ourselves to death by going around in circles' page. Decisive naming encourages newbies to visit. Dulled qualifier language will simply make it sound like something to avoid unless you are a real wikipediholic who needs an anti-depressant. FearÉIREANN 00:54, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But "Votes for deletion" makes it sound like voting is the process through which decisions are made. "Proposed deletions" might be dull, but at least it's accurate and non-controversial (yes, I know controversy is fun, but it's better avoided here, I think). I suppose one way to combine snappiness, accuracy, and lack of controversy would be to simply call it Wikipedia:Deletions. Actually, I quite like that... --Camembert 01:07, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) (PS "Frau" sounds too severe, but it seems I should've gone with "Herr" anyway :)
I wish I'd never mentioned the idea. How about we just redirect Wikipedia:Proposed deletions to VfD so that the anti-vote people can pretend it's called that and link to that if they prefer? Angela 00:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
But the problem is that it is called Votes for deletion, and that makes people think decisions are made on the basis of votes, and - well, you've said it yourself - they're not. Wikipedia:Proposed deletions ought to be something everybody can agree on: it very simply sums up what the page is about without any potentially misleading mention of the V word. Can anybody enlighten me as to why the move would be a Bad Thing? --Camembert

Actually, you're right: I do have well-publicised complaints about the UK's first past the post system, and if they'd only listen to me at the voting station... ;-) I wonder if wikipedia:pages to be deleted would be sufficiently immediate? -- Martin (because Fraulein Lucinda ain't here)

Wikipedia:Pages to be deleted works for me too (it has an air of inevitability about it, but it's not a big problem). --Camembert

Oooh. That would be 100 times worse. That suggests they are going to be deleted -> decision taken -> why bother going to page. Votes sells immediacy, sells 'something is happening that you may want to be a part of'. BTW Martin, only joking on the Frau stuff. I know you are a herr. (Anyway, until a few months ago my hair was longer than yours. Na na na na na! :-) FearÉIREANN 01:17, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Jtdirl that Wikipedia:Pages to be deleted is completely wrong. They are not pages to be deleted. They are pages to be discussed pending possible deletion. It would make no sense to list something on pages to be deleted when over half of the pages on the list are not deleted. Angela 01:21, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah well, biology isn't destiny. I withdraw my suggestion then - it was only a thought. Martin 01:32, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: can you envisage supporting any name that didn't have the word "vote" in it, Jtdirl? How are you with Wikipedia:Requests for deletion, for example? --Camembert

Re: supporting any name that didn't have the word "vote" in it - if you can find a word that has the equivalent impact in terms of selling the message 'decisions are being made here. If you want to influence them, come here immediately' by all means. But requests, like proposed, like possible, like maybe, like might just etc etc are all neutralising qualifiers that undermine the impact of the page's importance and so make it less likely rather than more likely that newbies will want to visit them. What you want to make this page dynamic and impactful is a title containing a hook. Votes is a classic hook word that makes a newbie notice and think "jeez. This looks important/interesting. I'd better look at this". I know if I when I joined wikipedia saw a Requests for deletion page I wouldn't have gone near it unless I was bored, as it would seem to be some minor technical page, not as it happens a page that decides the fate of people's work on wikipedia. But Votes for Deletion was sufficiently important looking, and offered me in the name the implication that I could participate, meaning that it was one of the first places to grab my attention by raising a whole range of questions: ' votes? who votes? Deletion you mean they vote to delete things here? Jeez, I'd better take a look at this. It looks damned important.' Neutral qualified titles would have produced a yawn and left me thoroughly disinterested. FearÉIREANN 03:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with you for several reasons. For one thing, I don't really believe that the word "vote" is going to be such a crowd-puller. Maybe if the page has a more "neutral" ("boring" if you like) title, new users won't get to it as quickly, but I can't see it being delayed by much, and once they know it's there they know it's there, and it doesn't matter what it's called. For another, I don't see why getting as many people as possible to the page is such a great thing anyway. Of course, if it was an actual vote you'd want a lot of participants, but it's not. People who care about a specific article under discussion are probably going to see the boilerplate put on the article itself. What's the point in getting a lot of users if all they're going to do is chirp "keep" or "delete"? And even if it is desireable to get people to the page, I don't think it's a good idea to do it by lying. It's all very well calling it "Votes for deletion" because votes are exciting (apparently), but decisions aren't really made on the basis of votes, so it's a bit of a con. If all you want is a lot of eyeballs, call the page "Wikipedia:FREE SEX!!!". But I really do think that an accurate title, free of potentially misleading talk of "voting" is more important. I'm not sure we're going to agree on this one, you know... --Camembert

Given that people cast votes on the page, and those votes may decide the fate of an article, how exactly is votes misleading. When they get there they can then read the methodology of voting, the percentage requirement, the length of time a page must be on for, who deletes, how consensus may be built to salvage an otherwise destined to be deleted article, etc. Votes is perfectly accurate. That is what the central core of the page is about, votes. FearÉIREANN 04:13, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Because as is explained above, "votes" are not the sole criteria for deciding to keep or delete a page, and often have no bearing on the decision at all. I'm just repeating myself now. --Camembert
Funny how you don't want to have to repeat yourself, but you demand that I do the same on the real VfD page. RickK 04:27, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, hilarious. --Camembert

Oh! I didn't realise that this had turned into a serious discussion. I know I was moaning about the name before, but I thought that was just me... Okay, I like Wikipedia:Requests for deletion most of all, I think. No, wait - Wikipedia:Deletionist/inclusionist battleground... ;) -- Oliver P. 03:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, never serious Oliver, never serious. :) Martin 03:10, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, we've got Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Why not Wikipedia:Pages for deletion (if that suffers from the same problem as "Pages to be deleted", then surely "Images for deletion" should be moved as well). --Camembert

Pages to be deleted is probably the worst possible idea imaginable. It states categorically that it is about pages to be deleted. Angela has already shot down that dreadful name - ". . . Wikipedia:Pages to be deleted is completely wrong. They are not pages to be deleted. They are pages to be discussed pending possible deletion. It would make no sense to list something on pages to be deleted when over half of the pages on the list are not deleted. Angela Angela is 100% right. It would be a disastrous name. FearÉIREANN 04:13, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For god's sake, man, I'm not on about "Pages to be deleted", I'm on about "Pages for deletion" in parallel with "Images for deletion". --Camembert

You are joking, Cam!!! (What were you smoking tonight? :-) ) Pages for deletion sounds simply like a list of those waiting to be deleted, having been already been approved for deletion (ie, waiting for some sysop with time on his/her hands to come along and dump them). You have a problem with Votes for Deletion when the name is 100% accurate (the page is about casting votes on deletion) yet you propose a name that is 100% misleading as better??? Weird. I'd leave the wacky tobacky to one side from now on. :-) FearÉIREANN 04:34, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Right, so where do you want to move Wikipedia:Images for deletion? --Camembert

Well, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/images would be an idea. Or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (images) But Wikipedia:Images for deletion is blatently POV as it presumes, as it says itself, images for deletion. Votes for deletion presumes a participative debate and vote, following the rules, which include a threshhold vote, a specified voting period, and the evolution of a consensus on the salvage of rewrite. Its quite obvious, really. FearÉIREANN 04:50, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

NPOV applies to articles, not Wikipedia policies. Martin 18:00, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A voting policy has been proposed at Wikipedia:deletion policy, but it's not without controversy, and I for one oppose it. We've got to be clear about this: as things stand, there's nothing in the deletion policy or in the deletion guidelines for administrators about threshold votes or anything like that (unless I'm missing something, which I may be). --Camembert
Em . . . where have you been Cam? Sysops have been following a deletion threshhold for weeks now (I think it is something like 2/3rds. And they have been following a policy of restricting who may vote to stop 'sockpuppets' (people creating phoney 'new' users for no other reason than to vote to keep their article), by requiring a minimum number of edits threshhold also. Oh dear. Were you having a Rip Van Winkle moment? :-) FearÉIREANN 17:48, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Stop being sarcastic, James, it doesn't help. Camembert is quite correct that we don't have a voting policy. See Wikipedia:deletion policy. Some sysops have been following a deletion threshold of 2/3rds. Under our policy of "rough consensus", they are entitled to do so. Martin 18:00, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Or, to put it a different way: if I ever start deleting pages from VfD again (which I keep threatening to do, but probably never will), I won't be using a 2/3 majority rule, and that will be fine according to present policy. If sysops are deleting articles by vote (and they're not, not all the time anyway), that's just a quirk brought about by whoever happens to be doing deletions at the moment. --Camembert
The fact that people do vote can't be ignored, but this isn't a reason to base the page name on it. Votes are one part of it, but there is a lot more to it than that and I would sincerely hope no-one is deleting based on votes alone. You need to take into account the article, as well it's history and how it's changed since it was listed on VfD, the arguments for and against, the current policies, who is voting and where their biases lie- are their votes made in good faith? Are they actually trying to vote according to what is best for Wikipedia or according to some other reason? If the article has changed since it was listed - did people vote before the article was changed? How have people voted in the past on similar articles? etc etc. It isn't all about a simple 2/3 vote, though it is somewhat easier to report that as the reason for deletion rather than trying to explain a dozen underlying reasons for the decision.
I don't really mind whether the page has votes in the title or not. The only thing that should be avoided is any suggestion that deletion is going to occur, because in many cases, it won't. If we avoid that, perhaps people will stop complaining so much about pages being listed here inappropriately. The name should reflect that the listing is only a suggestion for deletion. It doesn't necessarily mean your page is beyond all hope; it just means that one person listing it can't see the potential in it. I also disagree with Jtdirl that we need to get people rushing to the page. VfD is already overcrowded with plenty enough comments being made about the articles listed there. And if some newbie doesn't bother going to the page because they don't see the importance of it – it isn't the end of the world. They can list their page on VfU and state that they didn't realise they had to go VfD. There is no need to try and entice them there through the choice of a name-grabbing title.
Angela 07:19, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I don't like the subpage notation - it's all too computer-sciency. "Normal" people (I've occasionally met some) see a slash as an "either/or" thing. How about Wikipedia:Requests for deletion of images? Or is that too long-winded? Wikipedia:Requests for image deletion...? "Voting" is inaccurate for all sorts of reasons already discussed (for example, because you can't have a proper vote on pages which are changing all the time). I like "requests", because it lends an air of politeness to the whole thing, which will hopefully rub off on people who spend too much time there fighting... And yes, I am including myself in that... -- Oliver P. 06:26, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In that light, how about Wikipedia:page that may sort of discuss articles in a non-judgmental manner with a view to making them nicer. Is that nice enough? :-) I'm 100% opposed to requests it makes it sound like a group of elderly nuns at dinner looking to pass the salt to each other. This is supposed to an encyclopædia. This page is supposed to be about the deletion or otherwise of substandard articles. That presupposes an effective methodology. It presupposes a degree of professionalism. Users of this page summarise their opinions by votes. How those votes are totting up shapes debate and attitude. As votes are central to the page's working, elementary logic implies that Votes for deletion is a perfectly logical, perfectly accurate, perfecty correct name. Requests as one of the sort of 'neutralising qualifiers' that professional organisations run a mile from in this case, is a non-starter. FearÉIREANN 17:48, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Are you ever just 99% opposed to anything, James? ;) My opinion is that making the page seem like a virtual ballot box leads people to glance at articles, say "keep" or "delete" and then go away again, without really thinking of more constructive ways of dealing with problems. I'm sure that how the votes tot up does shape debate and attitude, at least for me. The more votes that are cast without meaningful reasons attached, the more annoyed I become! Votes are not central to the page's working; in my opinion they only get in the way of useful discussion. When I make a decision on whether or not I think something should be deleted, I read the arguments for both sides and use those arguments to inform my decision. The cries of "keep" and "delete" accompanying them are not much more than background noise. -- Oliver P. 00:40, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Oliver (just in case anybody hadn't already worked that out). --Camembert

My two eurocents.

Hmm. How about Wikipedia:Deletion decisions? Snappy, alliterative, no-nonsense definitively put. (I can see a jokey line though, but I'll spare you, lest you be prejudiced unduly.) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 07:56, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

I believe you have identified the crux of the issue, Angela, when you say that this is a discussion about pages to be discussed pending possible deletion. A quick acronymity brings us to P2BDPPD, which is not only short 'n' snappy, but trendy too, and even if it does bear some resemblance to a Bronx cheer, that may remind us all not to take this too seriously.

Okay, I'll be good now. I see a couple of ways of dealing with this. One is to recognise that what Wiki is really doing here is putting an article on trial, with sysops acting as jury. The rest of us know we will be allowed our two cents worth, euro or othewise, for either the prosecution or the defense, but we also know we know we have no vote. And while people might not be willing to get up from in front of their computers to visit "Proposed Suggestions for Possible Deletion, Maybe," they'd be in like a dirty shirt for "Pages on Trial." (And PoT might be a secret draw for some...)

Alternatively, Wiki already has a polling mechanism in place, and no one seriously expects their input to be anything more than, well, input. As the page header says, "Polls are not the same as voting, so the results are not necessarily binding (this is especially true when the result is not a supermajority - at least 75%). However polls are often useful in the process of consensus finding when regular discussion is no longer able to make clear what the opinions of users are." Therefore, the sysops may still conduct their business without feeling "voting pressure."

Hope this helps. Denni 04:44, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Denni. The new system described at Wikipedia:Deletion requests which will be trialled soon will hopefully solve some of these problems as it separates the comments from the votes. Angela. 12:42, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

I know this discussion is several months stale, but I didn't see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as one of the title suggestions. It would maintain the "for deletion" standard (WP:CFD, WP:IFD, WP:RFD), and it wouldn't mention the word "vote" in the title, either. • Benc • 09:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep the Current Name

"Votes for deletion" is perfectly sufficient for the subject. It's clear, it's concise. Leave it alone. Should it be renamed, however, I agree with the several respondents above requesting that the word "deletion" be retained in the name. PedanticallySpeaking 14:45, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)