Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

Updates to list[edit]

I went through WP:DSL (Flat list) and added everything that wasn't at WP:DS/C (compact list) to WP:DS/C. While doing so, I noticed there are a few things in compact that weren't in flat, but I didn't have time to check that every thing on compact is also in flat. That explanation was probably convoluted, so: The List by topic (DS/C) now has everything in the lists by ABC(DSL), but the lists by ABC (DSL) may not have everything in lists by topic (DS/C) as of this comment, and I'm hoping someone else might be willing to go through it. ― Padenton|   23:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Also went through most of [1] and added to both. Both lists should be up to date now but I might've missed something. Few things:

Neologism-related?[edit]

Articles about neologisms frequently find their way to AfD. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/language, but the subject of an article about a neologism is not typically going to be language or linguistics but rather the meaning of that neologism. To take a current example, Queunliskanphobia may be an etymological curiosity but the subject is "the pathological fear of saliva", certainly of little interest to someone interested in language (though I suppose you could argue that saliva is involved in spoken language?). Add to this the lesser point that there are separate notability guidelines for neologisms and, to me, it makes sense as a delsort category. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Devil's advocate follow-up: My only concern with this is that whether an article is about a neologism is sometimes controversial, giving rhetorical weight to the delsort category. It wouldn't be the only one that could be construed that way, though, and I don't think I've ever seen any problems arise because of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

New helper script[edit]

After installing WP:FWDS and having my cactions menu (e.g. "More ▼") spammed with a whole lot of options, I made User:APerson/delsort. It functions the same way, meaning that you don't have to edit the deletion sorting list because the script takes care of it for you. If anybody wants to test it out and report possible improvements here, that would be great. Having tested it out on testwiki first, I'm certain there aren't any major problems with it. APerson (talk!) 19:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Math deletion sorting[edit]

I think there should be a separate deletion sorting for math-related articles, which would probably best be located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics. However I am not quite sure if this is a good idea or how to do it, so I am posting it here for feedback. Everymorning talk 20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Video games[edit]

I propose that WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games be setup like the other delsort categories. Currently it requires that discussions be manually be added since scripts like WP:FWDS and User:APerson/delsort do not work. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 03:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm always surprised to learn people still use WP:VG/D when we have the better WP:VG/AA.  · Salvidrim! ·  03:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Last time this came up, WPVG editors liked having individual edit summaries for each addition—which is fine, as using the delsort script wouldn't change anything but the process of adding stuff to the list. (Maybe the list's structure would change, but whatever. It also does auto-archiving, right?) Anyway, support. – czar 04:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It seems the only real advantage of our current setup is the categorization by day, and I don't think that justifies making the system harder for everyone else. For those that prefer the dates, we do have article alerts. Reach Out to the Truth 05:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per czar and Reach Out to the Truth. Regards—JAaron95 Talk 05:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please review the following threads: 2012, 2013, May 2014, September 2014. I'm fairly certain my opinion hasn't changed since then. --Izno (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

    • The net change is that there would no longer be a header for each date and that discussions could be archived by a bot. CfDs, TfDs, and MfDs can still be added to the list. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 20:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)