Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive 1b

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel Quinlan (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 27 July 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

/Archive 1

This page grows too large too fast. I propose that we reduce the waiting period from 7 to 5 days. If there are no objections, I will change the text accordingly. --Eloquence 07:05 25 May 2003 (UTC)

We currently have a rather long list due to the discussion about Internet Humour. I think length will go down as soon as that issue is settled out. -- JeLuF 08:52 25 May 2003 (UTC)

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

I don't think that's a good solution. Yet another page to check .. --Eloquence 14:36 25 May 2003 (UTC)
We could just tell everyone using browsers which limit length to 32 KB to get lost ;) I think 7 days is too long, so I'm fine with this change in the short term. But it's only a 30% saving, and you can't remove entries with active debate (which often seem to be the reason for going over the limit). Perhaps we need a software solution. -- Tim Starling 14:50 25 May 2003 (UTC)
Yes, having [[Category:Deletion]] on the page, the discusison on the talk page, and the list of pages to be deleted auto-generated from the "what links here" of the category page would probably work best. However, category support is not there yet, so for the time being, we'll have to work with this solution. --Eloquence 14:53 25 May 2003 (UTC)
software solution discussed at meta:deletion management redesign... Martin
Keep it at 7 days, i say. the problem lies in the page-size, not in the process. so don't change the process to address the page-size issue. the page-size issue has come about because a few discussions have been animated. those discussions should be moved to the discussion page of said article. that should solve the problem. i am going to give it a try. Kingturtle 16:13 25 May 2003 (UTC)

a better solution is for us to be more diligent

keep it at 7 days, but move the cp to another page. These rarely trigger discussion anyway. Ant

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

Looks fine on my browser (Mozilla). Maybe it's just a browser issue? Sometimes that happens with really long lines of fixed-width text, but I don't see any of that in there... -- Wapcaplet 01:08 30 May 2003 (UTC)
EDIT: Whoops. Found it! The offending link is Anthony_Hancock_Paintings_and_Sculptures:_A_Retrospective_Exhibition, which, since it is indented many times, runs off the right margin. -- Wapcaplet 01:10 30 May 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yeah, it's the browser/editor kind of thing, the usual. Anthere always mangles 212's name, Jtdirl's Safari mangles Vangazi, your Opera mangles the Spearman's Ï? (it's not right where you just put it here, either). The joys of browser compatability. :p -- John Owens 22:40 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I wonder why I mess 212 name but not Vangazi ? Btw, thanks for always cleaning behind me John. I will leave a mess in less than 2 hours in wikimoney. :-)User:Anthere
And 142.177.98.227's manages to hit all three of the above, *sigh*.... -- John Owens 22:45 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Neither "Vangazi" or "Spearman's Ï?" are valid ISO-88519-1. The former is, as far as I can tell, Windows-1252, while the latter is probably supposed to be UTF-8. This site should switch to UTF-8 and those problems would not occur. -- Timwi 09:40 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
No. Actually it would be worse. Browsers not supporting utf will just destroy every special characters, instead of these three. I leave very ugly trails behind me on meta, and I cannot edit pages in french with accents. That is quite a trouble for me not to be able to write in my language :-)

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

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

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

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

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

How long do we wait before del copyvio? They all are so obvious, and they're added mostly by experimental Anon newbies. --Menchi 16:16 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I personally have deleted them on contact. They are a violation of our rules, and there really can't be any arguing regarding deletion, so there is technically no reason to post them here and wait a week. MB 16:58 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yes there is: on a couple of occasions I've known things which appeared to be copyright infringements actually be posted here by their original authors, and they've been fine for us to keep. It doesn't happen very often, admittedly, but it does happen. I doubt we have anything to lose by waiting a week before deletion. --Camembert
And on several occasions I have added public domain material that had also been copied to a third party's Web site, and then accused of violating that third party's (non-existent) copyright on the material. Just because material can be found elsewhere on the Web does not automagically mean it is protected by copyright. The Copyright Cops need to perform due diligence before making accusations and summarily executing articles. --the Epopt 18:01 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It is not out of the question that a lawsuit would be brought against wikipedia for a user uploading a copyrighted file. A week may make a difference. In compairison, Napster was shut down for the illegal activity of it's users. The copyrighted images I have deleted were uploaded by User:Arpingstone to prove a point, who said "my pics are copyright so in a few days I will have to have them deleted". See Talk:Finch for more information. MB 19:57 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
That possibility has been discussed at length and generally believed to be a straw man to not be anything we need worry about. If Jimbo were notified of a violation and acted immediately (within a few hours) he and his project would be held harmless under the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. We are not obliged to proactively seek out violations -- only to not commit them. --the Epopt 20:09 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
This is not straw man. Please see definition of straw man. However, I am glad to hear that there is such a special case in the DMCA. Thanks. MB 21:02 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Another reason for not being too hasty is that gives interested readers a chance to replace the article with non-violating work... immediate deletions would require the article to be started again from scratch which is less likely to happen. Pete 20:22 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Experimental anon newbies" sometimes turn out to be highly qualified authors submitting their own work which they have already submitted elsewhere. I've personally confirmed two cases of this by emailling the author. -- Tim Starling 01:05 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Regarding my deletion of the images on Talk:Finch. I realize now that I should have posted them on Votes for deletion first, even though they would have obviously been deleted anyhow. I was being a bit paranoid. I will list ANYTHING here in the future. MB 21:23 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Stubs are an important part of wikipedia. They provide users the motivation to research and/or write a new article. I have turned many stubs into worth while articles myself, and I know that many others have done the same. Besides, why should we discourage contributions? MB 23:19 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Good stubs are an important part of Wikipedia, I agree. It's questionable, however, whether single sentence stubs qualify — it's often not clear that a single sentence stub is any kind of improvement over no article at all. Wikipedia:The perfect stub article recommends that even a stub should be at least two useful sentences long, "And if you don't know enough about a topic to write two good sentences, consider not writing a stub."
(Incidentally, Antitussive is perhaps not a good example to use for this discussion; its status is complicated by the fact that it's a mere dictionary definition.) —Paul A 01:52 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's a pretty good idea, but I don't know if 200 bytes is too high a threshold. User:Smack

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

For example, something like this: 

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

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

Daniel C. Boyet is just a redirect. My name was so listed in an exhibition catalogue, so there is some possibility someone would look for me under that name. --Daniel C. Boyer

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

Good point. I'll try to remember to do that in future. -- Oliver P. 06:29 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea. Someone should probably create a boilerplate text, add it to Wikipedia:Boilerplate text, and make a link from VfD. --bdesham 17:45 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Maybe the note should be on the page itself rather than on the talk page. I'm thinking of new users who haven't yet found out about talk. Otherwise, they may find their article deleted and not know why. Then they quit contributing or they recreate the article which has to be deleted again. Angela
I agree with bdesham and Angela. How about this:
This page has been listed for deletion.
And write listed for deletion in the summary.
-Smack 21:00 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
How about: This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion. --bdesham 21:20 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I like that wording. FearÉIREANN 00:50 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Fine by me. And don't forget about the edit summary. -Smack 03:30 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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

That seems reasonable - try it. This page could use the organization alone. --mav
seems reasonable to me. In particular the 7 days respect. Ant

So you're saying that even resolved entries must stay listed for 7 days? That's very different to what happens now, and I think it would make the page quite a bit longer. The page would be cluttered up with entries where the consensus is clear. I think a better solution is that a warning should be posted at the end of the discussion saying "this entry will be removed if there is no more discussion within 24 hours". Write it in bold so it looks official. That way entries which were easily dealt with by a redirect or rewrite, can be quickly removed. -- Tim Starling 01:29 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Structuring the page into day sections make sense, this will also allow us to use the edit section feature once that goes live (next few days). I still think that 7 days is too long, though, especially if we provide a notification on the page. --Eloquence 02:08 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I think the structuring you describe would be quite appropriate. I would still oppose an immutable 7 day (or even 5 day) period, though. What's the story with the software update? Will it definitely be in a few days? Will my date feature be in? -- Tim Starling 02:26 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Structuring the page is a very sensible idea! Why did no-one think of that before? As for the 7-day rule, I am strongly in favour of keeping it, because not everyone comes here every day, and even if they do, there is so much going on here that it might be a few days before they even notice what is happening. We should give everyone enough time to add their comments. The idea of removing things if there is no discussion for just 24 hours is absurd. On the other hand, there should be exceptions to the 7-day rule: pretty much the same ones that we use already. If a page is deleted or redirected or sorted out so that the original proposer withdraws their deletion request, then I think an entry can be removed from the page straight away. -- Oliver P. 11:15 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I meant 24 hours after a significant discussion has taken place, and most importantly, a consensus seems to have been reached. I'm not saying that a 24-hour lull in discussion constitutes grounds for removal, just that as a courtesy to those interested, pages which have been rewritten or redirected should be left for a short time before the entry is removed. -- Tim Starling 14:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Okay, I'm sorry for accusing you of saying something "absurd". That was very rude of me. I see your point, and agree with you. -- Oliver P. 14:35 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I wonder if we should encourage people to discuss deletion with the author/on the talk page before listing here. That'd cut a lot of the noise, I think. Another way of cutting noise would be to insist that all discussion takes place on relevant talk pages. Then this page would be basically:
Martin 13:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


No, Tim you misunderstood me. Maybe I didn't make it clear.
  • What I meant was that unless a decision is taken in an individual case earlier, items stay for exactly seven days and no more.
  • Then they are deleted, kept or if more debate is needed, moved to a linked page. I do think 7 days is too long.
I think 7 days is right. Crucially, it means that folks who only come in once a week, eg at the weekend, don't find their article has been deleted while they've been away. We've got to consider low frequency users as well as Wikiholics. --mrd

Other ideas:

  • Maybe, as well as listing the date (which I have now done) we should specify the date a decision is due by. So we should say July 10: Decision by July 15.
(cutting in) I'm slightly concerned about putting a time limit on discussion - what were you planning to do if on July 15 there's no decision either way? Or is this when you move the discussion? --mrd
  • Rather than redirect a long discussion back to the talk page of the article, I would think it would be easier to create a special page attached to the VfD debate, which clearly indicates when a decision must be taken. So for example Wikipedia: Delete Mickey Mouse debate linked simply to the VfD page and the talk page. At the top it would have the July 10: Decision by July 15 type message. The trouble about using the talk page is that other issues including the delete debate are on the page and all too often the discussion runs out of steam on the talk page, or gets drowned out by other debates on the article, leaving the page to be deleted in limbo, sitting forgotten on the VfD page. A separate delete debate page could be clearly focused on (a) taking a decision, not talking generally about the article, and (b) taking it in a narrow timespan, with the special page and the page being delated scheduled for removal in seven days. (The page would still remain in the records through the link to the article being debated's talk page and old edits of the VfD page.)
(cutting in) I dislike this idea. Discussions about deletion are often heavily affected by discussions about edits of the article. So, someone votes to delete an article because it's just a definition, then someone adds some questions that it'd be good for the article to answer, and then someone answers the questions, and then there's suddenly no demand to delete the article. Sounds like if I fixed a to-be-deleted article by redirecting it, then I'd have to explain this on three (!) different pages. Ick.
Having deletion on a seperate page means that people watching the article won't automatically be notified of changes to the deletion discussion.
Often deletion debate is quite short (eg, a couple paras) - creating a new page for that seems less efficient than just using the article's talk page. Martin 09:50 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Finally, it might be an idea to simply put a list either on the bottom of the page or a linked page, of those which decisions taken, in the form

Deleted

a, b, c, d

Kept

e, f, g, h.

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

I'd say no. VfD is huge enough as it is. I think we should just put a list of related pages at the top, just like at the Village Pump. -Smack 00:49 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think the "Deleted" and "Kept" ideas are good, provided the size issues are solved. There should be a separate page for articles under debate, I'd definitely prefer to see a single debate page rather than putting the discussion on the talk page -- Jim Regan 03:09 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Can we just struggle on as is until we get a new deletion system? Martin 09:50 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Why struggle if we can improve the current system now? FearÉIREANN 19:24 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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

I don't understand why the copyright infrigment are kept for more than a couple of days. If there is a cp pb, unless there is a doubt for the cp and need to wait for an author answer, why not just delete the page on spot ? Why not setting a different page for the cp issues ?

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

Anthère

Because (a) we're not legally obliged to remove them immediately, and (b) apparently obvious cases of copyright infringment sometimes turn out to be genuine contributions. For example, not so long ago we had a movie review which was also in IMDB, and it turned out to be submitted to both places by the original author. Erythrophobia is an interesting case in point, as is Albert Camus/the Absurd. We're not very diligent in asking authors for permission: in the two latter cases, I emailled the author after the entry had been on VFD for a few days.
true. You are right. Not a good idea then Anthère
I think you're right about classification, though. I've given my support to that idea previously. -- Tim Starling 01:28 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This is a good point and I am in full agreement. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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

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

Hephaestos, your proposal seems very cumbersome to me. This seems like a place where a little software could go a very long way. Daniel Quinlan 10:05 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Software in what sense? I'm very much against a blanket software change that would do away with the 32k limit on articles, that would lead to article bloat.
And at any rate, I think an admin going to delete an article should at least skim it, and its talk page (if any). - Hephaestos 10:08 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Roughly, to nominate an article for deletion, I'd propose one of two methods: (1) adding it via a web form or (2) adding a link on the article page itself (as is done with POV disputes). The former is probably better. Then, someone could set up an SQL query to list current pages up for deletion and put them on a summary page which would be one big HTML form. Next to each line on the summary page, have four radio buttons ("no vote" as the default, "delete", "keep", "other") and a line for a comment (which must be entered for the vote to be used). These get added to the vfd summary page automatically. When a vote has concluded, just remove the entry or link and paste the comments into the talk page and delete (or not). Deletion is going to become more and more often as Wikipedia grows in popularity and someone might as well solve the problem right. I'm not volunteering, but I'd prefer to either solve it right or do a more minor split (like a page for copyright deletions, a page for ...). Using Talk: pages only would be a major pain because it would make commenting/voting very slow and cumbersome (although edit conflicts are getting to be a pain as well). Daniel Quinlan 10:37 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yeah but I was talking short-term. - Hephaestos 10:39 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/archive_1b&oldid=1202161"