Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Summary of this archive

On 24th August, Someone else reformatted VfD with the aim of reducing the 93kb page. Comments and suggested improvements made before7 September are summarized below. Please see the archive for the original text.

Comments

  • Kaijan said that the new format looked alright, though would take some time to get used to, concluding that the method looked to be a sound one.
  • Dante Alighieri, whilst not in love with the new format, recognised that it solves the length problem.
  • Anon said VfD was little more than garbage, which Kaijan felt was overly harsh and expressed the opinion that the new system was more functional.
  • Angela, whilst agreeing that something had to be done, wondered about the practicalities of having to visit 10 different VfD pages. Kaijan counteracted this by asking "who wants to scroll through the whole page just to find a certain comment?"
  • Tarquin thought it was dreadful.
  • Anon, misunderstanding that Someone else was still in the process of adjusting VfD, accused him of having botched the job. Someone else stated he would have done this quicker ad it not been for the anon's "help".
  • Dante Alighieri highlighted the problem with not being able to add it to his watchlist and said people no longer discuss things older than a day. He felt that something needed to be done but hat this was not it. He later said he had stopped participating on the VfD page because of the new format
  • Daniel Quinlan felt the new VfD format stank and that it made commenting and monitoring basically impossible.
  • Jake, who had originally thought this might turn out well, later felt he was wrong and that the format was not working.
  • Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick said his participation has dropped because of the way he felt about the current system.
  • mav said he really hated the new system and thought that having a 70 KB page was better.

Suggestions

  • Change it if you don't like it. (Camembert)
  • Individual dates should be subpages. (Jiang)
  • Split off by type (suspected copyright", "illegible junk" etc) (Tarquin) (support by Martin, SEWilco and Camembert) (rejection of a split of by junk by bdesham)
  • SEWilco suggested that doing the process bit by bit may have been less controversial.
  • Move "/date" pages back when they're very small (eg, only one page listed). (Martin)
  • Use an HTML form to add to Vfd (SEWilco).
  • Archive after 2 days, not 1 (Dante Alighieri)
  • Pages should be listed on the main VfD page for at least three days (Daniel Quinlan)
  • VFD-by-category or pages get listed on VFD, but absolutely all discussion is on talk pages. (Jake)
  • Stop listing things that don't need deletion. Fix stubs. (Jake) (rejected by RickK) (supported by Martin) (sort of supported by Angela)
  • List the page and if anyone objects, the page is delisted, and discussion moved to the talk page. Come back if the solution is deletion. (Martin) (supported by Tarquin and Cimon Avaro) (suggestion repeated below)
  • Let administrators delete nonsense without listing it –handle objections on VfU. Desysop those who abuse this. (Wik) (Tarquin said we already do, Wik said he meant stuff like the Kkawohl pages and Martin pointed out the difficulties surrounding undeletion and desysoping).
  • Be more flexible on what counts as junk (Angela) (Martin pointed out how this clutters up VfD, Tarquin and Wik suggested extending the definition of junk)
  • Delete copyvios immediately to adhere to OCILLA provisions - see wikipedia talk:votes for deletion/copyvio
  • Non-admins should be enabled to view deleted material. (Wik) (rejected by Eloquence to prevent trolls abusing the system and copyvio issues)
  • There should be a system to check how many of your deletions get undeleted. (Wik)
  • Have a fastrack process. (Mintguy) (support from Smith03)
  • Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal) (Cimon Avaro)
  • Keep things as they are on one page. We have workarounds for the few with 32kb issues. (Pete)
  • Articles that are proposed for merging/redirecting instead of deleting can be moved to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention if the work is to ardous to find someone to do it now. VfD should not be a poster-board for ' Please fix this article ' (One current example : Ventricles of the heart) (Pete)
  • Delist pages from VfD if anyone objects to deletion - they can be listed again when there's consensus (possibly vote-derived) that deletion is the correct approach. Martin
    • I wasn't removing this suggestion when I summarised, I was just unduplicating it. I don't think this is a good idea. One objection is not enough to prevent deletion. 80% would be better. Should the original author be allowed to object? Angela 23:18, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • No worries re: summary: you did a superb job. :) I think one objection should be enough to temporarilly move the discussion off VfD, and let the two people discuss it between themselves for a while. If they can't come to a decision, then it can certainly be re-listed. Martin 23:31, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Other

  • What do you do with the subpages when finished with? (Dante Alighieri)
  • Someone else suggested deleting or blanking them. G felt deletion was the better option.
  • Morven asked that people not blank pages before listing on VfD. Martin agreed. Angela said this does not apply if the content is potentially copyvio or abusive. Alex756 reiterated the importance of this.


Unsummarised version follows

Trial Format

Page was previously 93K long. Now nominees only are here, and discussion is on the daily pages. After each day is over, the discussion can be moved to the page. If it is decided this is too unwieldy (though I can't see that it's more unwieldy than 93K), the daily comments don't have to be moved and we'll be back to normal in a week. -- Someone else 09:35, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It looks alright. For several moments there, though, it looked like the page was vandalized. The archive page for Aug. 22 was missing, so I set it up. It will take some time to get used to, especially as regards to functionality, but this method looks to be a sound one. -- Kaijan 09:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Date Subpages Suggestion

I think the pages for the individual dates should be subpages. This way, it is no longer necessary to include "back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" for each new page created. The software will automatically include the link. --Jiang 09:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A very good idea. Kaijan 09:59, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That would work, just make each new daily page [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DATE]]. -- Someone else 10:03, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I thought that only worked in the User: namespace? Maybe I'm wrong. --Camembert
How about [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Day_Of_Week]] or [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Day_Of_Month]] so there are only 7 or 31 pages, with recycling? --SEWilco
I'm not in love with the new format, but it sure solves the length problem. Maybe the format will grow on me. :) Quick question, what do we do with the subpages that aren't needed anymore, delete them or just leave them blank until they're needed a year or so later? --Dante Alighieri 11:27, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'd encourage deletion once everything on it is dealt with. Without additional listing on VfD. But that's just me.<G> -- Someone else 11:29, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Trial Format: Comments from VfD

Comments moved from VfD page'

  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion - as this page is now little more than garbage, it should be deleted.
    • I think that's a bit harsh. I think this new system set up by User:Someone else is much more functional than before. Each day now has its own discussion page (which could be created the day after a new day has started), while the main page has the links to the pages in question. It seems quite simple. -- Kaijan 09:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Well something had to be done, but who wants to visit 10 different pages to see what the comments are? Angela
        • I understand that (and I was really confused as to what happened to this page at first, thinking it was vandalized or something), but by the same token, who wants to scroll through the whole page just to find a certain comment (especially if you don't remember the day it was on)? -- Kaijan 09:46, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Trial Format: Comments from Village pump

Comments from Village pump' (and more comments added here...)

  • Any particular reason someone savaged the VfD page?
good question. It's dreadful. If it's too long, I think we should split off by type: "suspected copyright", "illegible junk" for example - Tarquin 09:17, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I especially like the part where someone made a unilateral decision to drastically alter the whole page and then botched the job.
It's not undoable, and it wasn't the unilateral decider (me) that botched it. Nonetheless, if sorting by type is better, let's do that. Yes, 93K is too long. -- Someone else 09:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Read the edit history. When you stopped you didn't do anything past Aug. 21. If that's not botching it, I don't know what is.
I wasn't "stopped" till it was done. I was, however, considerably slowed down by the "help". Comments on the VfD format should go on the VfD talk page, BTW.-- Someone else 09:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I humbly suggest that people not happy with the present format get off their unilateral arse and change it. --Camembert
I've done tasks like this in the past. The trick is in doing the task in pieces which reduce conflicts. Such as in this case preparing the older entries first (in this case the per-day link-only entries), as those can be dropped into place ahead of the current day's entries. In this case you also can cheat a bit -- you could have ensured VfD had headers which would appear as a TOC in the new pages, so you could paste all of the old VfD entries in all the "previous day" pages, then edit each individual day to remove the irrelevant. Too late for this change, but maybe not for whatever is tried next. -- SEWilco 14:46, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'd prefer to seperate out wikipedia:votes for copyvio or somesuch - I have to say that I'm not fond of this new style. One question - does it make sense to move stuff back when it gets to the Aug 14 stage - four pages listed, with links to talk page and brief summary? Martin 13:21, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
(Now the (sub)pages are all named in the same way) I'm not sure about the use of the summary page, one could directly list only on the daily subpages. Possibly a new page every week (5 days?) would do? -- User:Docu
(I don't think there's any point in the /date format - automatic links to parent articles only work in the User: namespace as far as I can tell. But I suppose they do no more harm there there than they do anywhere else. --Camembert)
Indeed it doesn't, but one format is better than four. This allows you to go easily to the following number. --User:Docu --

Subject Split Suggestions

I suggest we split off:

-- Tarquin 14:33, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • Separating the votes by category would reduce the race condition due to several people editing at the same time. I only edited VfD 3 or 4 times and had to redo because of someone else's edit 2 times. SEWilco
  • This would also allow each page to have a shorter intro which is focused on its particular deletion issue. SEWilco
  • Perhaps there could be a "submission" type of page, where normal use would be to fill in blanks and click a "Submit" button, which would append the data to another page. Editing the "submission" type page would operate normally. Most of us reading this probably know how HTML forms work, and that's one possibility for the design of this type of ability. SEWilco 14:46, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't think the "pure junk" item would be necessary; that kind of stuff is, AFAIK, "shoot on sight" for admins. --bdesham 14:59, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)
yes, it is "shoot on sight" for admins -- but non admins may want to notify admins of its presence. -- Tarquin 10:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I certainly think separate pages for copyright and foreign language are a good idea, but I'm not sure they will be enough to take VfD below 32Kb on their own. For instance, I reckon that the items listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 20 break down as follows:
  • copyright: 3, maybe 4
  • foreign language: 1
  • pure junk: 2 (roughly)
  • other: about 10
It's the "others" that tend to have most comments, so they take up most space by quite some way. But as I say, these pages are a good idea anyway - go ahead, I say. --Camembert

copyvio page

Noting Camembert's suggestion above re unilateral arses, I created such a page. Martin 17:08, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Problems with the new format

OK, here's one. With the old style, I could put the Vfd page on my watchlist and see whenever someone made an addition. The way it stands now, I have to watchlist every "day" to make sure that I can catch new discussions. In addition, I think the format has a chilling effect on discussion of anything older than one day.

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. --Dante Alighieri 22:03, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, no one seems to be watching this page... but I'll make another request as well,. I'd like to ask people to hold off archiving the page for two days, instead of one. I don't think that that should push the page to 96k, and it would be easier to deal with the page, at least for me. --Dante Alighieri 20:21, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

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, it makes commenting on deletion votes very difficult, and monitoring of votes via watchlist basically impossible. I think it also has resulted in a dramatic reduction in voting and participation by the community. Pages should be listed on the main VfD page for at least three days before being archived (which is basically what the subpages amount to — archives — because participation and discussion is way down). Daniel Quinlan 23:31, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

I'd thought this might turn out well... I was wrong. The current format is not working. Especially when one must go VFD->Date->Article's talk page... it's just bad. I see two options: A) the VFD-by-category and B) pages get listed on VFD, but absolutely all discussion is on talk pages. Neither of these is new. The other thing is that people really, really need to stop listing things that don't need deletion. Maybe a moratorium on deletion of pages with content (any content!) for a while. If there's a problem with a page, fix it. If it's a stub... then it's a stub, which means it's a valid article that you should expand upon. If it's a copyvio or POV ranting, rework it so that it's not. Deletion is too much of a 'quick fix' for when we don't want to take the trouble to fix something. -- Jake 04:07, 2003 Aug 27 (UTC)

A deletion moratorium is nonsense, and cannot be supported. This would only give a green light to the addition of totally nonsense articles. RickK 04:19, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I encourage people to follow Jake's advice, fixing pages rather than listing them for deletion. Martin

  • It's actually now quicker to fix something than it is to go VfD, find the right date and category that you're supposed to list something under, add the VfD notice, maybe tell the author what you're doing etc. Perhaps that was the plan all along? ;) Angela.

remove pages on opposition?

Here's one option: people list pages they want to delete. If anyone objects, the page is delisted, and discussion moved to the talk page. Then they discuss the issue, reach a consensus, and come back here if the only solution they could find is deletion. If they find an alternative option, then they need not bother this page again.

Just a thought, anyway. Martin 08:24, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

that is a good idea, especially if a dicussion turns long. we sometimes end up having two parallel debates on the value of a page & how to improve it -- that is a needless duplication. -- Tarquin 10:06, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yup. Miles better than the current experiment. (sorry, but that is the truth - the current system killed my interest in participating on vfd almost to nil (well, I guess it did have something to recommend it after all :D) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 13:50, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Just let administrators delete nonsense without listing it first. All objections should be handled on Votes for Undeletion. An administrator who abuses his deletion powers (i.e. whose deletions are frequently overturned) should simply lose his administrator status. --Wik

that is what we already do, Wik. But not all pages listed here are "pure junk". And non-admins sometimes report pure junk to be deleted -- Tarquin 14:07, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, we may have a different view of what's "pure junk." I think stuff like that of Kkawohl should be deleted right away. And admins should be able to take that decision on themselves. But you're right, there would still need to be a place where non-admins can report junk. But it shouldn't be required that anything listed there has to remain for 7 days. Admins should be able to delete it when they see it. Then the page size will not be a problem. --Wik 14:20, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Interesting. Of the 15 articles listed on Vfd on August 26, which would you consider "pure junk" that would have been better deleted on sight? Martin 15:01, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
At least those:


--Wik 15:26, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

There seems to have been a recent opposition to the deleting of junk. People are now more wiling to scrabble through VfD looking for stuff to fix whereas before it would have sat for a week without comment or been deleted on sight.
Some people see hope in anything, even an article containing simply "Jim was born in 1968 and likes hedgehogs". Some would argue this is a start as it contains three facts whereas until recently I would have deleted it on sight. I won't now as I know there are people waiting in VfD to fix it! Angela
Unfortunately, this approach (and I don't criticise you for it, Angela) clutters up VfD. It's a shame there isn't equal interest in wikipedia:pages needing attention, for example. It'd be nice to fix this somehow, if it does need fixing.
Thank you for answering, Wik. My concern is that our current undeletion system is rather unpleasant to use, and votes for undeletion, as currently laid out, was not designed to take much traffic. Equally importantly, non-admins cannot view deleted material. Finally, experience suggests we would be unwise to allow individual sysops to delete possible copyvios on sight (you listed two), or we would end up deleting a lot of (very good) public domain and GFDL'd content unnecessarilly. Martin 18:53, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Oh, one other concern. It is not "simple" for someone to lose hir admin status. Tends to get rather messy, in fact... :-( Martin 18:56, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Martin, to answer your points: 1) I don't think undeletion would see much traffic. Of course the change would be pointless if discussion just moved from VfD to VfU. But the result of many things currently put on VfD is a foregone conclusion: they will be deleted with certainty when the week is over. And if those can be deleted outright, no one will list them on VfU. 2) Yes, non-admins should be enabled to view deleted material. 3) I don't think any "possible copyvio" should be deleted on sight, only "probable copyvios." I don't know which two copyvios you speak about, I think the only one I listed was AddALL, which was not only a rather clear copyvio, but even if it were PD, the content of the article does not match the title so the content would have to be moved to Bias (book) and Bernard Goldberg and then the article would have to be deleted anyway. 4) I don't think it has to get messy if rules are simply enforced. There shouldn't be an endless discussion about it. In fact, the system could count one's deletions, and those that are reversed, and if the latter get out of proportion the user could automatically lose admin status. --Wik 08:42, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)
No, non-admins should not be able to view deleted material. This would turn Wikipedia into a breeding ground for trolls who could deposit material with impunity (and continue to view it and link to it, thereby attracting more trolls), and would get us in legal trouble in case of copyvios. Any trusted user can become an admin, which is exactly the kind of barrier to entry we need for viewing deleted material: trust.—Eloquence 02:33, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

definition of "pure junk"

  1. "wfgksjhgljshglfhkgldfhkper peorut d;ojfg peorut gj" sort of thing
  2. "penis penis penis" or "john is gay"
  3. "what do I write here?"

Something like "Jim was born in 1968 and likes hedgehogs", if it's in a page about Jim is debatably a stub, and not "pure" junk. -- Tarquin 08:56, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So you draw the line somewhere between "John is gay" and "Jim likes hedgehogs"? Well, I think we should extend the definition a bit. --Wik 09:03, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

What about the OCILLA provisions of sec. 512 of US Copyright law?

Also posted on Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion/copyvio

It states that VfD for copyright violations are seven days. Is this in complete conformity with the DMCA? The section also known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which is made a part of the US Copyright law in sec. 512 of Title 17 United States Code, states if someone who is a copyright owner follows the rules of that section, the ISP should remove the material for which copyright is claimed "expediously" so as not to incur liability i.e. not wait seven or ten days, but take it off ASAP). Of course this requires notice to the Wikipedia:designated agent which is not what is happening in the VfD pages, but since we are trying to make sure there is no infringement shouldn't that be mentioned on the Vfd pages and in the VfD policy pages? If someone who claims copyright finds out that we are infringing shouldn't we make sure that Wikipedia is in compliance so we do not occur any legal liability to Bomis, or Wikimedia? Just a thought. Alex756 22:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The designated agent is Jimbo. If he gets a notice, then he can have the material removed immediately, without going through VfD. Doubtless he would also announce any such event on the mailing lists -- certainly for the first time. VfD is not for the designated agent. -- Toby Bartels 09:12, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. OCILLA talks about cases where someone who owns the copyright or has the right to act in their name gives notice of the copyright violation and requests its removal. In such a case immediate removal seems indeed called for, but I don't see what VfD's policy pages have to do with that. Andre Engels 10:59, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think you have both missed my point. My point is that clear copyright infringements do not call for a seven day waiting period and a consensus voting process. This Vfd process is much more complex than needed. If it is a simple copyright violation, just delete it before it is made into a page history (and then it is permanently available on Wikipedia). Shouldn't we be trying to make Boomis' life simpler so that they never get a OCILLA notice? I thought that was the whole point of being so vigilant here, keep Wikipedia pure of copyright infringement, not vote on it and discuss it for weeks. I don't see any reason to dump this all in Boomis' lap if the volunteers can help prevent it. Alex756 04:05, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If we were sure they were copyright violations that would make sense, but the main reason we list them rather than outright deleting is that we've ended up being wrong in more than a few cases. It's not that infrequent for an author to submit material they have also published on another website; it's also not unheard-of for it to turn out that the site copied from actually was in the public domain (PD US government sources occasionally turn up on VfD for copyright violations, for example). --Delirium 06:29, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe if it were clearer that page histories are not released under the GFDL then we would not have to worry about deleting anything, just blanking the page into the page history archive (it is always available in significant ways under fair use for research and study). If someone gave permission they can always do a revert later. Wouldn't your point Delirium also indicate that putting a stub on that page that is VfD/copyvio is not a good idea until the copyvio allegation is cleared up ?) Alex756 04:00, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

VfD is getting out of hand. We need some sort of fastrack process. Can I suggest that we have a Wikipedia:Votes for immediate deletion that requires 3 admins to agree to immediate deletion, or something anything that will speed up things. Mintguy 22:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, something like Triangle Lover dose not need 7 days Smith03 22:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this fnord.

There is something that I prepared earlier. Well, sort of. It's not ready, but maybe it will be when we "really" need it. At least if someone bothers to tweak it. I'm (not so) obliquely referring to Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal) which I submitted to a total overhaul (though my IP-address got the credit due to login timeouts :) and name change :D (used to be something like "Waiting room", and was much too complex anyway. I've tried to simplify the thing and probably will in the future.) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 23:01, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

moving days back when near empty?

When a day only contains one or two articles listed for deletion, I think it makes sense to move it back here. VfD is around 10-15K these days, so we've got space to spare, and people have frequently observed that seperate page => nobody comments. Martin 21:10, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Personally I don't even check the articles themselves, to see if I would care about their deletion anymore. Call me apathetic, but that is how I feel about the current system. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 04:12, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Same here. I really hate the new system and frankly think that having a 70 KB page was better. --mav 04:41, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I've stopped participating on the VfD page because of the new format. :( --Dante Alighieri 04:24, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why blank pages listed on VfD?

Some people seem to always blank pages that they list on VfD. Why? Keeping the content makes it easier to see whether it should stay. (and yes, of course one can read it in the page history, but what's the point?) --Morven 03:28, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you see someone doing this, just unblank it, and add the deletion notice. Martin 09:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree but there are exceptions. I think blanking should occur where the content is potentially copyvio or abusive. Angela 18:26, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
In the case of the copyright infringements, defamation or otherwise abusive content immediate blanking puts the pages in the page history. While it is still accessible at least it is out of the way of any external page links to that page. The page history archives are not being published in the same way as the current version of a page. It is also important to note that defamation, unlike copyright law, depends on the place where the page is viewed; it is not based on the law of the place it is stored, thus any defamatory statement that is not immediately removed may cause problems not only for those who have linked to it but the Wikipedia community in general. Some countries have been imposing a higher standard of care to prevent defamation on the administrators of online information depositories; the more we can do to minimize exposure in this area, the better. Alex756 19:46, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_2&oldid=386722519"