Jump to content

Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benc (talk | contribs) at 23:18, 6 November 2004 (→Yes, a trial would convince me of this policy's workability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Voting for the proposal Preliminary Deletion will close at 00:00 UTC November 5 12 2004. Voting has been extended by a week due to several factors; see #Polling extension?

Voting is now open. Please make comments on either the voting booth's talk page or the proposal's talk page instead of with your vote.

The first question

"Should Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion become official Wikipedia policy?"

The first question's answers

Vote only once, for only one choice. If consensus is not reached, votes for the second, third and fourth choices will be added to the total for the first choice.

Yes

  1. Thue | talk 06:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 10:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but only permit keep votes

For an explanation of what this means, see #Alternative.

  1. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:20, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nuclear man 09:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but add precautions to prevent exploitation of the process

For an explanation of what this means, see #A corollary for handling a possible caveat.

  1. AdamJacobMuller Fri Oct 29 17:06:47 EDT 2004
  2. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:13, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Slowking Man 04:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Antandrus 05:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'd like to add that although expanding speedy deletion criteria was supported by voters against Managed Deletion, there's the worry of pooling too much power in sysops' hands. If users don't trust three admins (per Managed Deletion) to handle deletions, why should they trust only one?
  6. Cafemusique 07:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Seems like a good way to deal with this situation.
  7. Sietse 07:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 08:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. *drew | Talk 08:29, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  10. The Anome 09:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Tagishsimon 12:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Proteus (Talk) 13:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I'd like speedy deletions to be expanded, but even if they are this would still be a useful intermediate step between speedy deletion and VfD.)
  13. →Raul654 14:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  14. —No-One Jones (m) 14:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. R. fiend 15:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) Though perhaps it could be simplified a little?
  16. ✏ Sverdrup 15:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Geni 16:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. Jayjg 16:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 16:31, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Indrian 16:34, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Tuf-Kat 18:35, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Nadavspi | talk 19:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  23. William M. Connolley 20:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  24. Goobergunch 21:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  25. ugen64 21:42, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  26. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:39, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  27. PMC 00:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  28. Antaeus Feldspar 05:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  29. JoJan 08:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  30. Vague Rant 13:00, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC) Good idea.
  31. Rje 13:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  32. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 16:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  33. Delirium 00:19, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  34. Barnaby dawson 11:18, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) Almost exactly what I think should happen. Good work on the proposal.
  35. David Gerard 11:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  36. older≠wiser 12:29, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  37. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 15:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) Only because expanded speedy deletion is highly unlikely.
  38. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 16:03, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  39. PlasmaDragon 16:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  40. Mpolo 17:10, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  41. Whosyourjudas (talk) 18:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  42. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  43. RobertStar20 20:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    (Comment: this is this user's third edit) JFW | T@lk
  44. Nought 20:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  45. Scott Burley 00:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  46. [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 07:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  47. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  48. Robin Patterson 19:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  49. 69.170.17.134 19:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) ABCD 22:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Got a username)
    This is this user's second edit. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  50. Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:15, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  51. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:16, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  52. Warofdreams 20:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  53. Sebbe 20:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (Comment: this is the user's 12th edit) Netoholic @ 07:43, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
  54. gK 07:13, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  55. ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  56. G Rutter 21:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  57. Ambush Commander 23:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 67 edits.) -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  58. Autopilots 09:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 43 edits.) -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  59. Martin TB 15:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 59 edits, and these votes are the first since July.) -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
    That's because I was away most of August & Sept and then changed my browser and forgot my login.Martin TB 10:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  60. ChrisO 19:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  61. Ashibaka ✎ 20:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  62. KeithTyler 00:30, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  63. Billfred 02:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (This user's 19th edit. Also voted on Managed Deletion.) - Netoholic @ 09:11, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  64. Yes. Broux
    This was actually added by 67.67.190.177. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  65. • Benc • 23:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) The precautions in their current state are overly complex, but we certainly do need some kind of anti-trolling mechanism for this whole thing to work. Since so many people didn't like Geogre's original idea of using sysops, a bulky set of rules is a necessary evil.

Yes, but only permit keep votes, and add precautions to prevent exploitation of the process

For an explanation of what this means, see #Alternative and #A corollary for handling a possible caveat.

  1. Bill 08:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) The "keep" vote should not be that of the writer of the page, nor any anonymous, of course.
  2. Tannin 10:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:36, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) - Allowing delete votes makes it more of a hassle and thus less useful.
  4. L33tminion 17:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)- Yes, this biases in favor of inclusion. I think Wikipedia should be biased in favor of including articles.
  5. Guanaco 19:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. PedanticallySpeaking 15:04, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Aphaea 22:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) agreed with Bill.
  8. [[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 09:54, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. •→Iñgólemo←• 03:38, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC) I strongly agree that we need a system to prevent the VfD from being overloaded. I do not think that this proposal adds 'too many rules' to the system. I also like this proposal better than managed deletion (which I also approved of, though did not vote on). The main reason is because it allows for community input.

No

  1. Shane King 04:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. No, expand speedy deletions instead. silsor 05:44, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. No, expand speedy deletions instead, and note the community's verdict on Managed Deletion, which, though referenced in this, appears to be virtually exactly the same. Ambi 06:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    (comment) Lots of people voting "no" to Managed Deletion gave the reason "opposed to admin only voting", which isn't a problem with Preliminary Deletion. So I would not consider that voting result as being relevant to this issue. Thue | talk 07:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. anthony 警告 11:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. No to even more confusing bureaucracy. Eclecticology 12:05, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  6. Instruction creep is heavy with this. Better defined speedy deletion guidelines, and a simpler two-person "Tag 'n Bag" standard would seem to answer most concerns. -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  7. Mark Richards No. Reduce the amount that is deleted by applying the current policy, not making more.
  8. No, for the same reason I voted "no" on managed deletion: "Problem resolution and escalation are already far too complex. Let's count: VFD, speedy delete, RFC, RFM, RFAR, PR, Cleanup, Current surveys, PNA, and the pump for good measure. We already have ten avenues for dealing with various content and user problems. The last thing we need is yet another specialized problem resolution page." Rhobite 20:34, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  9. No more rules. The Recycling Troll 21:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. How many levels of deletion pages do we need? This proposal has an excellent underlying idea, but its implementation does not appear to be up to par. I propose that this same format be merged with some other page, such as the Speedy Deletion page or the VfD page itself. -- Emsworth 21:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. No. Dr Zen 00:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. No, expand speedy deletions instead. Arminius 04:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Mike H 09:36, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Precisely what Arminius said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 15:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. No. Death to bureaucracy [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 15:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. No, deletionism is anti-wiki. Sam [Spade] 15:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. No. Would result in a more convoluted system. RoseParks 01:19, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  18. No. This isn't the answer to the problem. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 09:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. Already too many problem solving pages that aren't dealt with; keep trying, though. JesseW 10:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. No. We need to focus more energy on doing good work, and less on criticizing bad work. VfD slows down because too many inappropriate cases are being brought. Expanding avenues for deletion will only further drain our wikipedian vitality. Visviva 14:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  21. No. Largeness of VfD can be tackled the same way largeness of VP was — splitting into subpages, e.g. one for each date. Having many different kinds of deletes is confusing. -- Paddu 17:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. No. Policy creep again. No. No. No. A thousand times no.Sjc 07:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  23. No. Grue 08:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 70 edits.) -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
    Are you sure about that? I count more than 250 and less than 500. He's pretty active in the areas of Archeology and Christianity. Mpolo 09:30, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
    (moved from under G Rutter's vote) You're right, thanks. Placed under wrong line, probably because the names are similar. -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  24. No. Sander123 15:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  25. No. Already too much bureaucracy and too many rules. --leandros 17:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  26. No. [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 06:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  27. No. Axl 20:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 15 edits, all the day of this vote.) -- Netoholic @ 09:29, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC) I have been editing prior to registration. I didn't want to register for privacy reasons, but one of your administrators specifically asked me to register. I did not see any notice to suggest that only users with a certain minimum number of edits are permitted to vote. If this is the case, I will retract my vote. -- Axl 17:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  28. No. Lifefeed 01:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) A too complicated of a solution for a problem that's not that bad.
  29. No. I agree with the aims but have problems with the implementation. Ben James Ben 01:46, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
    (User has just over 100 edits, but a long string of voting right after hitting that.) -- Netoholic @ 09:29, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
    (I'm a bit put off by Netoholic's comment. While I understand that preventing vote fraud is important, I think that the way this is being done will discourage people, especially new users, from participating (which I think is the bigger "crime"). A more fair method would be to post editing records for all users, if this is valid criteria for deciding whether a vote is valid. That being said, if anyone feels that I should not vote, please let me know and I will consider withdrawing my vote.) -- Ben James Ben 22:59, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  30. No. I know we need a better system, but I don't think this is good idea. -- Taku 02:26, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

The second question

"Should a month-long trial of the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion be held before a permanent implementation?"

Note: The trial's implementation will be based on the outcome of the first question; if pure "yes" or "no" wins a consensus, then the implementation will default to the pure policy without the alternatives; otherwise, the implementation will be based on the choice which wins consensus. Should a trial be held, a second poll will be held at the end of the trial run to judge whether the implementation shall be permanent.

The second question's answers

Vote only once, for only one choice. (Duh.)

Yes, a trial would convince me of this policy's workability

  1. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:16, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:20, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Slowking Man 04:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Antandrus 05:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cafemusique 07:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Sietse 07:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. *drew 08:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Bill 08:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. The Anome 09:51, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Tagishsimon 12:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. →Raul654 14:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  13. —No-One Jones (m) 14:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. R. fiend 15:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 16:32, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Indrian 16:34, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Tuf-Kat 18:36, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Nadavspi | talk 19:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. William M. Connolley 20:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. PMC 00:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  21. Antaeus Feldspar 05:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. JoJan 08:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  23. Vague Rant 13:07, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  24. PedanticallySpeaking 15:05, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Aphaea 22:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  26. Jayjg 07:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  27. sannse (talk) 10:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  28. David Gerard 11:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  29. older≠wiser 12:30, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  30. Barnaby dawson 12:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) This will allow people to see the proposal in action.
  31. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 15:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  32. PlasmaDragon 16:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  33. Paddu 18:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  34. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  35. RobertStar20 20:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    (Comment: this is this user's fourth edit) JFW | T@lk
  36. Nought 20:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  37. Scott Burley 00:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  38. ugen64 01:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  39. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  40. Robin Patterson 19:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  41. Geni 20:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  42. Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:16, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  43. [[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  44. •→Iñgólemo←• 03:40, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
  45. gK 07:13, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  46. ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  47. Ambush Commander 23:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 67 edits.) -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  48. Autopilots 09:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 43 edits.) -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  49. Ashibaka ✎ 20:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  50. Q17 21:13, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 55 edits, last ones were in August and April.) -- Netoholic @ 09:33, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  51. Ben James Ben 01:52, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
    (User has just over 100 edits, but a long string of voting right after hitting that.) -- Netoholic @ 09:29, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
    (Please see my reply to Netoholic's comment in the "No" section of the First Vote above. I'll also note that there was a long string of things-to-be-voted-upon, which is in fact the subject of this vote.) -- Ben James Ben 23:10, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  52. Billfred 02:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Mainly to prove the point.
    (This user's 20th edit. Also voted on Managed Deletion.) - Netoholic @ 09:11, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  53. Nick04 18:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  54. Rje 23:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  55. Worth a try. We can always get rid of it if it doesn't work. Isomorphic 01:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  56. • Benc • 23:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No

  1. Shane King 04:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  2. No, expand speedy deletions instead, and note the community's verdict on Managed Deletion, which, though referenced in this, appears to be virtually exactly the same. Ambi 06:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. I should note that these two poll answers do not cover all possible positions. anthony 警告 12:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. No, the argument does not need painful prolongation. Eclecticology 12:05, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  5. Netoholic @ 17:45, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  6. Indeed. L33tminion 17:46, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Mark Richards No.
  8. Rhobite 20:37, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  9. The Recycling Troll 21:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) No. More. Rules.
  10. silsor 22:38, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  11. No. I'd like to have voted No to the policy as it stands but Yes to a trial if it is passed, but that isn't possible. Dr Zen 00:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Not unless the "Yes" vote passes. RickK 00:50, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Maurreen 06:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. Mike H 09:36, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  15. RoseParks 01:14, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Not constructive. Visviva 14:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. No. Sjc 08:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  18. Martin TB 15:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    (User has 59 edits, and these votes are the first since July.) -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
  19. Lifefeed 01:10, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) Don't like the idea of a random trial after an indeterminate vote "just to see if it works."
  20. Taku 02:29, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC). I don't agree with this proposal in the first place. Why would I agree with the trial?
  21. --Wonderfool 13:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I dispute the validity of this poll and poll question. The question assumes that this policy should be passed in the first place, and the descriptions in the answers do not cover the full range of possible positions. anthony 警告 15:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the policy does not get consensus, but then there is consensus for a trial...? We don't need this to be official policy to have a trial run. If the community wants a trial run, then they'll get one based on the proposal that's not a policy. As for the descriptions in the answers, that's a mistake on my part (although I should note that I've already explained on this page's talk that despite my soliciting comments on the questions and answer for the poll on the mailing list, my request went largely unheeded). Should we rewrite the answer and restart the polling for this question on a separate page? Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I still don't understand the purpose of this poll. If question 1 passes, and this passes, then what? If question 1 passes and this fails, then apparently we have no trial. If question 1 fails and this passes, then do we have a trial, or not? If question 1 fails and this also fails, then, well, nothing happens. I'd rather have a trial than a permanent policy, but I'd rather have no trial at all. So I think I'm supposed to vote no, but it isn't really clear from the poll question. anthony 警告 17:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, if question one fails, that means that consensus is that they don't want a permanent policy for now. But if question two succeeds in actually getting consensus (a remarkable feat if question one fails), that indicates people want to see a trial before they actually make the policy permanent. So if you want no trial at all, vote No. Johnleemk | Talk 18:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As for fixing the answers, I'd be willing to just changing them to "Yes" and "No" (and maybe leave the explanations below as a description of what the original explanation is). But the poll question still isn't very clear. I know you solicited comments, and I'm sorry that I didn't make this comment before the poll began. But in my defense, the poll question was only put up 2 days before the poll started. anthony 警告 18:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What if a trial gains consensus, but so does Vote 1? Does that mean we are going for a trial, although there was consensus to make this official policy? ugen64 21:44, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Well yes, because there would be consensus to make it policy but only after a trial. The choice I'd like to see isn't possible as this stands. If there's a Yes vote, I'd like a trial; but if there's a No, I would not. That doesn't seem to be covered. Ugen64, it seems that what you mention is covered by Yes/No to the two questions.Dr Zen 00:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, that's the choice I would want (trial if it's a yes, and non-trial if it's a no). This probably should have been combined in the original poll, but that was already complicated by the two optional amendments. anthony 警告 01:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony. Question 2 is poorly worded. Axl 20:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Polling extension?

Notably, we've got a lot less total votes than Wikipedia:Managed Deletion/Voting's (the current total is even less than Managed Deletion's total "no" votes alone!). Should we extend the deadline or just leave it as is? Johnleemk | Talk 10:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that that probably is the best course of action. •→Iñgólemo←• 03:39, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

I have decided to extend voting by a week for the following reasons:

  1. There has been no serious objection to such a proposal.
  2. The total number of votes is only slightly more than that for the "no" option alone on Managed Deletion.
  3. It is likely that extending polling will help build a clear consensus; although a majority has voted "yes", it would be tenuous to describe this as consensus, and although "Yes, but add precautions to prevent exploitation of the process" has more than twice the votes of any other option, it would be even more straining to call this a consensus by any stretch of the word.
  4. Extending voting would not hurt anyone; it is better to err on the side of caution, especially seeing as a consensus (or a stronger lack of consensus) is likely if voting is extended.

Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voting should not be extended:

  1. There are serious objections, this proposal makes deletion faster and adds overhead to an already complicated process.
  2. Adding more votes will not build consensus, it will only build division. The way to build consensus is to look at the no votes, talk to those people, and find out how you can convince them to change their vote to yes.
  3. Extending voting hurts by taking the focus off discussion and compromise.

Instead of extending voting, add precautions to prevent exploitation of the process to the main proposal. Get rid of the part about only voting keep. Then start an open discussion again. I've already said I would change my vote to yes if the votes from preliminary deletion are not moved willy-nilly to VFD even though the article has significantly changed during the preliminary deletion process.

anthony 警告

I've already explained why your idea would not be usable. I've already discussed the proposal with ambi on IRC. I've listed my reasoning responding to the most common objections on this poll's talk page. The fact is, deletion is such a divisive policy that any proposal to change it is likely to find it difficult to obtain consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 08:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Where is this explanation? I see a claim that this isn't a big issue, and that this change is unnecessary, but I see nothing about why it isn't usable. Not sure what your having discussed the proposal with ambi on IRC has to do with anything. Since you've listed your reasoning responding to the most common objections, I guess you admit that there are objections (just don't think any of them are serious?). Yes, it's difficult to obtain consensus. But leaving a poll up longer doesn't fix that, in fact it makes it harder to obtain consensus, by dividing the voters. anthony 警告 15:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It isn't usable, because applying such a criterion to all pages would be extremely unreasonable. An vanity page, no matter how well-written, can never be encyclopedic. A dictionary definition can't be encyclopedic, even if you rewrite it. You see, Preliminary Deletion is for obvious deletes; if the article probably could be rewritten well enough in the first place, it probably should go on VFD. Looking back at the proposal, I do see that someone chucked in "obvious substubs", which I disagree with (it was not one of the proposal's original criteria). Do note, however, that subthat get rewritten are usually kept. If it ain't broken, why fix it? My discussion with ambi was responding to your suggestion of talking "to those people, and find out how you can convince them to change their vote to yes". I do agree that the objections are serious, but the way they talk, they seem to think that this proposal is recommending a ridiculous expansion of bureaucracy or is suggesting some extremely complex procedures such as those put forth by Geogre on the proposal's talk. How would leaving the poll up lead to divisiveness? I plan to rewrite parts of the proposal after voting; I just want to ensure that others get a fair say about the proposal as well; nothing is hurt if the poll remains for another week. After it ends for real, then I'll rewrite parts of the policy to clarify things, although the idea of running another poll sounds like it would piss people off, to me. Johnleemk | Talk 16:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It isn't usable, because applying such a criterion to all pages would be extremely unreasonable. I don't see how that makes it unusable. Besides, this would only apply to pages which weren't deleted. If the page is useless, then it won't get any keep votes in the first place. An vanity page, no matter how well-written, can never be encyclopedic. I've already discussed this with you. It's completely untrue. A vanity page, when re-written, is no longer a vanity page. A dictionary definition can't be encyclopedic, even if you rewrite it. Depends on the dictionary definition. I've seen a lot of dictionary definitions saved by the VFD process. Besides, even articles which can never be more than a dictionary definition can be redirected. You see, Preliminary Deletion is for obvious deletes Speedy deletion is for obvious deletes. But anyway, if the delete is obvious, then no one will vote to keep. if the article probably could be rewritten well enough in the first place, it probably should go on VFD No, it should go on cleanup. Looking back at the proposal, I do see that someone chucked in "obvious substubs", which I disagree with (it was not one of the proposal's original criteria). Getting rid of that reason in a future proposal would be a good start. Do note, however, that subthat get rewritten are usually kept. If it ain't broken, why fix it? Because it wastes people's time, which is exactly what this proposal is supposed to be solving. If VFD aint broken, then why do we need this proposal in the first place? I do agree that the objections are serious I suggest you cross out your statement above that there has been no serious objection, then. but the way they talk, they seem to think that this proposal is recommending a ridiculous expansion of bureaucracy or is suggesting some extremely complex procedures I'm not going to argue over whether it's "ridiculous" but it is a significant expansion of bureaucracy on top of an already too beurocratic process. How would leaving the poll up lead to divisiveness? It won't lead to divisiveness, as we already have divisiveness (as evidenced by the vote). It'll expand the divisiveness, because it'll add to the list of people who disagree over the proposal. I plan to rewrite parts of the proposal after voting It would make a lot more sense to rewrite the proposal before voting. I just want to ensure that others get a fair say about the proposal as well You don't let others get a fair say about the proposal by letting them vote, you do it by opening up discussion. nothing is hurt if the poll remains for another week It's one more week we've gotta wait before we can start trying to come to a proposal that can find consensus. It's not a big deal, but I don't think the poll should have been extended, as it has obviously failed. After it ends for real, then I'll rewrite parts of the policy to clarify things Good, maybe people will like your new proposal. although the idea of running another poll sounds like it would piss people off, to me Then don't bother rewriting the proposal, if you're not going to submit the revised proposal to a poll. You're not suggesting that this poll shows a consensus, are you? anthony 警告 17:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how that makes it unusable. Besides, this would only apply to pages which weren't deleted. If the page is useless, then it won't get any keep votes in the first place. Ah, so that's what you meant. I consider it an unnecessary step; I think it'd best if the new proposal merged the currently most popular option with the policy itself and then add suggestions such as yours to a new optional section. I've already discussed this with you. It's completely untrue. A vanity page, when re-written, is no longer a vanity page. I've already explained to you that the policy defining vanity pages implies that even if an article that is vanity is rewritten, it remains a vanity page, because a vanity page is defined by its topic, not its article. Depends on the dictionary definition. I've seen a lot of dictionary definitions saved by the VFD process. Besides, even articles which can never be more than a dictionary definition can be redirected. True. No, it should go on cleanup. Regardless, that's probably not within the purview of this proposal. Because it wastes people's time, which is exactly what this proposal is supposed to be solving. If VFD aint broken, then why do we need this proposal in the first place? Well, the issue here is what makes VFD broken; we just disagree over what makes it broken. I suggest you cross out your statement above that there has been no serious objection, then. I was referring to the proposal to extend voting, not the policy itself. Probably should have used a different word to make it explicit. You don't let others get a fair say about the proposal by letting them vote, you do it by opening up discussion. Explain to me how I've stifled discussion. Most people who voted probably wouldn't ever have found this page if it wasn't put up for voting, and they aren't coming back to discuss it. Whether or not voting was extended, they wouldn't open a dialogue, because I know from experience that most people never bother reading talk pages. You're not suggesting that this poll shows a consensus, are you? It shows a majority support the proposal, yes, but not a consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 08:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Preliminary_Deletion/Vote&oldid=7176565"