Wikipedia talk:Votes for Deletion, the next generation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instruction creep[edit]

There are too many of these proposals going up all at once. --malathion talk 01:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't notice any of them until I made this one though. This seems like the best idea to me though. --Phroziac (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can balem people RFCing Tony. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is too complicated. One of the major faults of VfD is that it was too complicated. This would make it even more so. Enough with the instruction creep, already. Kelly Martin 01:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have strong instruction creep tendencies, Kelly. Sorry! --Phroziac (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The project isn't as complicated as it looks. Its much more simpler than vfd. What I am saying is in order for you to delete a page you have to get the author to defend it and fail to establish materials notability or relevancy or if it is encyclopedic. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a step backwards to me. There seems to be not room for discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that if the process is made like RFA, then the entire deletion process has to be extended for a while. How long should it last: two weeks? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, that's what the "comments" section is for. Maybe it should be renamed to "discussion"? Zscout370, Two weeks is a little insane. I assume you're talking about extending the process for cases where consensus is not reached in the normal time? All i met by like rfa was the format by the way. --Phroziac (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most of the delete votes happen in the first few days, and usually never added on to. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what is everyone's issue with "instruction creep." Every new policy I ever tried to start or was involved in was shot down due to this "cpeep." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instruction creep - the gradual accumulation of more and more instructions that results in irritating overcomplicated processes that few people know the rules to. Tends to happen because people think "we need a rule for X", and don't consider the effects of hundreds of people doing the same. See m:Instruction creep and related Creeping featurism. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, once I see this word pop up, EVERYONE begins to oppose the idea. This happened every time I been involved. But, I think with as few rules we have, we need more once we see certain situations come up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out the vote as requested, I was too enthusastic. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact that this proposal starts off with a vote on the day that it's introduced, only shows that it's getting ready to replace the existing problem with more of the same. The biggest need in an effective deletion system is admins who are capable of being sensitive to the interests of all parties in a deletion discussion. All those with an interest in a particular discussion, including rank newbies, need to feel that their arguments are being heard. This does not mean that everything they propose will be kept, but they can at least walk away from a losing argument with the feeling that they may still succeed in future arguments. This requires patience and humility on the part of those admins, and the ability to recognize that the peace which comes from giving others the benefit of the doubt may be worth far more than the perfection that comes from eliminating an article of dubious notability.

I have no problem admitting that I sometimes act autocratically about deletions in Wiktionary, and occasionally even ignore the wishes of the majority, but there is no outcry about abuse of privileges. Those against whom I act today know that tomorrow there will be other arguments that they can win. Apart from some obvious no brainers, I prefer to wait until at least seven days after the time of the last comment on a proposal before taking any kind of action. Not only that, but in all cases, including the no-brainers, I prefer to wait at least a further seven days before deleting the debate. This leaves an opportunity for those who might want something undeleted. The process may be much slower, but that's better than letting loose a hoard of junior Dr. Strangeloves to impose their solutions. Eclecticology 08:59:02, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

I have comented out the voting. As requested. Sorry I was too enthusiastic. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss what is sugessted, not how it is presented. I don't think opposing something for petty reasons is the wisest idea. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who the fuck are you to be calling my comments petty? The way the issue is being presented is the problem. It's recursive that way. Starting off with a pre-determined set of ideas, and insisting that everybody stick to the agenda that you have laid out for them is just another form of POV pushing. The VfD problem will not be fixed by tinkering with the details of the rules, but by promoting a fundamental change of attitude. Eclecticology 19:25:57, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
I encourage you to have a read of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, I will ignore any future comment if it countains any form of personal attack as I have zero tolerance to personal attacks. I am not dictating anything, I want to see a real discussion rather than immidiate opposition due to a vote presented in the proposal. You are welcome to discuss ideas. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from page[edit]

  • Problem with the category is that it's not sorted chronologically, making it hard to follow deletions. --SPUI (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree with an arbitration group, however, you'd end up with a group of users clearing up a load of deletion stuff, and not contributing to the project overall, which isn't fair to my mind. Perhaps users could opt into a month's "deletion duty" or somesuch?
  • Rob, I already do way more janitorial work on wikipedia then actual contribution. Most of what i know is already there! :( As far as I see it, it's still contributing to make the Wikipedia better, which is worth doing. I would support a comitte or opting into a time of "deletion duty" though. --Phroziac (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think almost all of these proposals would make the VfD process worse. Point for point: - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Only keep/delete votes allowed: at the moment, people vote e.g. "merge", because that is what they want to happen. Take that possibility away, and their opinion can no longer be heard. Unless, of course, they leave a comment in the comment section, which emans that the admin who closes should take that whole section into account... - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge should be fine in the "other" section, that's most of why i put that there. I'll update the text to show it. :p --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But votes in the "other" section count as comments: not at all. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only Yes/No votes. Merge, assimilate, exterminate and other comments belong to discussion. The merging should be done prior to the vote anyways. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other is sort of a type of comment by the way. --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with the binary approach to votes, because I think the different votes mean different things. "Delete" means that neither the information nor the article name belong on Wikipedia, whereas "redirect" means that the information does not belong but the name does, whereas "merge" means that the information belongs iff it's at another location in conjunction with other information but can not stand on its own or remain where it is, and "keep" means make no changes at all. Equating merge to keep or redirect with keep is a false equation that totally misrepresents people's opinions in an attempt to fix a "problem" that I believe doesn't exist. The Literate Engineer 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its a simple, you have a week before actual vote starts hence enough time to do whatever you want. Meanwhile you can merge/rewrite it. If it is indeed salvagabple people who innitialy want to delete it may go keep. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • To the admin who closes the vote, "redirect" and "merge" do count as "keep", as in: no admin-only action needed. However, they do convey extra information about what the voters want, which is good.
        • Anyhow, if I'm reading Coolcat's comments correctly, he is saying that "merge" should count as a comment, i.e. not as a vote at all. Which is ununderstandable. Eugene van der Pijll 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merge should not be a vote. votes should be yes/no. Anything else is action that should be attemted prior to vote start. Merge means the material to be deleted should be deleted and presented elsewhere, I do not see a reason why this cant be done prior to a vote. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There are VfD's where there is a consensus (or nearly so) for merge. Under this rule, everyone will have to vote "keep", and then after the vote is closed, someone will merge & redirect. But because "merge" was not a vote option, there is no consensus for this to point at, and much discussion will ensue. Taking options away from people will not make them happier. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We arent reinventing VfD, just simplifing it. We dont want poorly formated/categorised data to be deleted if there is the slightest chance it will be converted to well formated knowlege. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just rename "Keep" to "Don't delete", and the merge people can vote there. Of course, this proposal starts out by saying that Deletion votes are for gathering consensus to delete an article, and is not a majority vote. If it's really consensus we're after, I don't see what the point is of voting at all. Voting gathers dissention, not consensus. - Unsigned 70.216.78.144 # Only allow "move to bjaodn": of all possible votes, "move to bjaodn" is the most pointless. If you want to streamline the process, this should be the first thing to go. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^^ --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • bjaodn is fine. Same procedure form VfD can proceed I dont object to it. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What then if the original author fixes the page after a week? Are previous votes invalidated? If so, should everyone vote again? Say no to bureaucracy! If not, what is the difference with current practice except that you lengthen the VfD period by two days? - 70.216.78.144
  3. 1 week to fix the article: if you mean that voting cannot start until a week after the nomination: our aim should be to make the process shorter; not longer. This proposal means the voters will have to visit the discussion twice: once to comment on the weaknesses of the article; a second time to vote on the deletion. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, voting would start immediately. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A certain period of time should be given to the article prior to vote. 1 week, 15 days thats open to debate. see section above. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh! I think 15 days is a little much, i'll vote a week. --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I gave arbitrary numbers the comunity should decide. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nominator should put delete vote in: why make the exception (nominator doesn't want the article deleted) the default? - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it screws up the vote numbers if they are lazy and don't. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote should nont be rushed. Nominator can change views. The point of this process is to try to improve the article. If its beyond repair a delete is then voted. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No immediate renominations: Good idea. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say no renominations for a mounth. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really support renominations, but i think 3 months would be a good number. --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about this, what is the VfD requrement to renominate a page? Lets not reinvent calculus before a calculus exam and use that. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there is, but i know it's frowned upon to renominate soon. --Phroziac (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, I believe in making renomination of "no consensus" VFDs mandatory. And for renomination of kept articles, I believe a substantive change to the article's content makes the article eligible for renomination, even if that's no more than 5 minutes after closure. The Literate Engineer 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If opinions are exactly divided, this would mean that an article can be nominated again and again and again. At some point, people should agree to disagree. I would prefer that this happens at the first "no consensus" vote. Eugene van der Pijll 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voting on article talk pages: if the pages are controversial, this will mean that there is already much discussion on the talk page. If the vote is also on the talk page, it will be harder to find, and it will refer more to the surrounding discussion. I fear this will make it much harder for the closing admin to tally the votes. Voting should be on seperate pages. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article talk subpage maybe? --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Voting and delete discussion should be placed above all discussion. If people on contraversial articles cannot refrain from personal attacks and/or abusive behavior they are violating wikipedia policies and will be dealt accordingly. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. firm and solid rules for criteria: There are rules. The reason there are so many discussions on VfD is that people disagree about how these rules apply to certain articles. You cannot change that by creating more rules: there will always be borderline cases, that will have to discussed individually. (And, by the way, that is partly how these rules are created: not a priori, but during VfD's.) - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably :( --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the US constitution when first declared there were lots of "should"s, they later were ammended to "must"s. I dont want new rules, I just want existing rules to be clarified and not open for interpretation. Wikipedia is not a soap box or a state court. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. every delete should be a speedy: I'm not sure you really meant that? - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, every deletion should not be a speedy. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coolcat, whose idea this was, thinks differently: [1]. Eugene van der Pijll 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not make comments in my name. Comment on your own, I am capable of agreeing or disagreeing. Every deletation should be speediable. If there is a slim chance a speediable page is slvagable THEN it can be VfDed. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I am proposing a page be deleted it is best to mark it for quickie delete, if reviewing admin (delete committee) sees it necesary to delete no real reason to discuss. Just let people like Tony Sideaway decide. If they think there is room for discussion page should be deleted at once. This is neccesary against people with misguided energy (GNAA).
  9. deletion community: If you mean a committee, 5 or 6 people who have to decide on every VfD (dozens a day, every day); where are you going to find these people, outside of the "VfD fanatics"? - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll poke Coolcat with a fork on IRC until he responds. --Phroziac (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have an arbitration community, certainly it isn't that hard for people to form a Deleteaton committee. Jimbo can appoint or we could think of some other way. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Many of these arguments also apply to the other proposals that are being thrown around at the moment. I'm afraid that wikipedia really needs something like the current VfD process: it's sometimes ugly and unpleasant, but it fulfils a need, and it works, mostly. And when it fails, it's on the most controversial issues. I don't see why another process would work in those cases. - Eugene van der Pijll 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The point of VfD isnt to get an article deleted or save it. It exists to improve wikipedia. In my view and many people out there VfD is over cluttered fails to achieve its primary function. Its a palce where random people throw each other personal attacks. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does "get an article deleted" differ from "improve wikipedia" if the article doesn't belong? The Literate Engineer 18:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. How to criticise. There are two types of criticism, usefull and useless. Useless: "Aw this articke SUX. delete!", Usefull: "How about we reword first paragraph like so and perhaps reoranise the page? ". After lots of usefull discussion, I do not believe a delete will be necesarty as the article will be improved beyond recognition. {{nonsense}} will still be {{nonsense}} and get deleted pronto. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "Aw this articke SUX. delete!" useless? It shows that the voter thinks the article is totally inappropriate for wikipedia, and that wikipedia would be improved if it were to be removed. Eugene van der Pijll 18:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it has no details. You need to have a good reason to not want a page. It also prooves you havent bothered to read the page. If you are refering to {{nonsense}} pages those are/should be deleted without voting --Cool Cat My Talk 12:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comon Ground[edit]

Discussion period of new vfd's[edit]

Firstly lets establish certain comon ground, we all agree that a vote prior to discussion is highly flawed. Correct me if I am wrong. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose 15 days discussion per delete request. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. A proper nomination includes the reason the article should be deleted. It seems strange to me to allow that one person, but no others, to vote and discuss simultaneously. Additionally, any delay - especially on the scale of multiple days - slows the process far too much. The Literate Engineer 15:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless one is itching to delete a page (ie extreme deletionists) they will participate in a discussion. There is no point to have a VfD if we arent even going to try to imrpove article quality. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In >90% of the cases, there is no real discussion; and a 15 days waiting period seems overlong for those relatively easy cases. In the other cases, when the VfD is controversial, there has often already been much discussion on the article's talk page, so the extra delay is not really needed. Why do you think the deletion procedure needs any more bureaucracy? Eugene van der Pijll 16:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then in 90% of the cases a template such as {{nonsesne}} {{d}} or {{db}}. You are right this is one of the primary reason VfD is cluttered. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about a middle ground: we keep the 14 day process. However, if the clear consensus is to delete the article and if there can be nothing that can be done to the article, the VFD can always be closed early. Plus, though the CSD has increased, we still get over 100 articles a day on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoning redundent centeralised template system -> Dynamic Page Lists[edit]

It started as a nice idea but since VfD is cluttered we seriously need to move the delete process to article talk pages as we have on average a list of templates two pages long on VfD. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Phroziac (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The centralized pages allow browsing of all active discussions, which means you can more efficiently select which votes to participate in. If a consensus has already developed and you agree with it, you can see that, and skip the vote. If a vfd's been around for several days but only two people have voted, you can see that, and contribute. A category would tell you nothing about any individual VFD until you'd visited it, which would make picking which VFDs to participate in a random and unnecessarily lengthy process. Devolution of the VFD process is, to my mind, a terrible idea. The Literate Engineer 15:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely with The Literate Engineer. As I said above, it is necessary to have the discussion on a separate page; it could be a subpage of the talk page (as per Phroziac's suggestion), and one can transclude those subpages on one page, just like the VfD subpages at the moment. But that is only a very minor change.
I totally agree with The Literate Engineer. However, moving the votes to a subpage of the article's talk page (as proposed above) would be a completely useless effort. We have a nearly functioning system already, why bring it down when it can be improved? - ulayiti (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about we subst a template to the talk page which creates a sub page (such as Article name/VfD) and automaticaly adds the page to a category (lets say Category:Votes for Deletation/3 August 2005). It is very time consuming to place a page for vfd on current system. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Page Lists[edit]

There is a way to list articles in a category chronologically: use the m:DynamicPageList extension, which was developed for Wikinews but could be very useful here. It's not (as far as I know) turned on here at the moment, but I can't see that being a problem.

It would allow the VfD template to include a category (if it doesn't already), and then a single page could automatically list all articles in that category, not only in time order, but also with the day they were added (useful for seeing which have had their time).

However, if the debate was moved to the article's talk page, wouldn't it be deleted along with the article in the event of a consensus for deletion? Dan100 (Talk) 11:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Neat suggestion! I like it. Yes, it would be deleted with the article. Do we really need an archive of every page ever deleted, and why? I suppose that if we do, an archive could be made, where the deleting admin archives it to before deleting. --Phroziac (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of the redundant VfD template we keep talk pages of deleted articles as to keep the discussion. Perhaps protect it as well as it shouldnt be edited what-so-ever. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOu could have a template which contains a category name that is constructed from the current date, I think. This would give you a separate cat for each day's nominations. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Template:tony1 for a basic proof-of-concept. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Process should be arbcom like?[edit]

Arbcom is discussing matters with minimun burocracy. I think this would be wise, disagreements? --Cool Cat My Talk 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have experience with arbcom -- is there any reason YOU do? :P --Phroziac (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom is a small group of people who are familiar with each other. I oppose making VfD similar to that: every established wikipedian should be able to participate in a deletion decision. And with so many people, you can't have a discussion as structured as Arbcom without bureaucracy (I'd even say, you can't have that kind of discussion at all). Eugene van der Pijll 16:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcrom is already strecthed to its fullest, and this idea will cause users to scream either bloody murder or cabalism taking over. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NO just see how Arbcom votes. It shouldnt be a vote on delete or keep but individual parts. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure wiki deletion system and VFDTNG[edit]

I really like the pure wiki deletion system, and have for a few days. I decided how it can even exist with VFD, the next generation. Basically, you do normal deletes with the pure wiki deletion system, if someone reverts you, you can start up a poll on deleting it, to reach consensus one way or another. And, if there is some reason (like a copyvio) that a page or revision should be permanently deleted, we could have a template to add to the talk page, after consensus is reached, to bring admin attention to it. What do you guys think? --Phroziac (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_Deletion,_the_next_generation&oldid=1137397468"