Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

Abuse of VFD for Wikipedia: namespace

We've been tolerating VFD votes for pages in Wikipedia: namespace for a while, but...

What often happens if that these vfd votes turn into majority voting on the policy or project described on the wikipedia: namespace page. Um. Oops.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I have a bit of a problem with letting majoritanism in through the back door like this.

So I suggest that from now on Wikipedia: namespace vfds should be declared invalid and closed. (And we should warn people opening them that this is in fact the case.)

I don't think anyone would be seriously opposed to this, as it is the actual old policy, but just to be sure, I'm posting here, just so you know what's up :-)

Kim Bruning 14:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well you really need moe than a simple majority to get any page deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, but a lot of people are treating it as if a supermajority really would be sufficient, which is obviously wrong. Kim Bruning 15:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
You have a point there, and I have added a "keep" vote to the discussion to try and offset it. Then again some policy proposals are just disruption... Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty and Wikipedia:Administrators cannot vote come to mind. Then again, thinking about it, Everyking had a good point when he argued against the deletion of these. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that the use of VfD to try and delete a Wikipedia namespace page is usually a violation of WP:POINT and should be treated as such. Fenice, for example, nominated Wikipedia:Template locations for deletion simply because he was in an argument about the location of the WP:IDRIVE templates and didn't like that article being mentioned. I removed the nomination. violet/riga (t) 15:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Kim and Violet; we should go back to not allowing anything other than null-namespace delete votes here (articles, that is). Too often (read: almost exclusively), nominations for deletion of Wikipedia:-space are by those who strongly oppose the suggested guideline, rather than by people noticing their being out of date and un-useful. Real discussions for deletion could go somewhere more appropriate, like on the discussion page perhaps, with suitable notices on AN, etc.. James F. (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Often the nomination of Wikipedia: namespace page is for purposes of WP:POINT, or a misguided attempt to reject a proposed policy. On the other hand, sometimes those policy proposals are themselves instances of WP:POINT or thinly-veiled (or overt) personal attacks. In those cases, I'm not so sure that deletion isn't a valid fate for those 'proposals'.
I'm not overly concerned about people using VfD as a way to force the implementation of a majority view on a policy. As noted above, deletion requires (at a minimum) something like a two-thirds majority, and substantially more from some VfD closers. As well, there is a significant fraction of VfD voters who will oppose the deletion of any genuine policy proposal on principle (for exactly the reasons Kim Bruning has mentioned) even if they are opposed to the proposal itself. Deletion of Wikipedia: space pages is only supported by those editors when it is obvious that a particularly egregious abuse is taking place.
Another concern about narrowing VfD's scope is that it will render the Wikipedia: namespace much more vulnerable to misuse. Certain trolls and vandals are very likely to discover that they can make nearly any WP:POINT they want in the Wikipedia: space and get away with it. It will lead to nasty arguments on WP:AN/I about how "You can't delete that! It's in the Wikipedia: space!"
James F., if the discussions on AN or the article discussion pages found that a Wikipedia: namespace page should be deleted, we'd have to rewrite policy to do so, and it would probably result in the same sort of complaints afterward that I described in the previous paragraph. Perhaps we could create a separate page for managing deletions, merges, and so forth of Wikipedia: namespace pages, but I'm not sure why it would be necessary.
Finally, as often happens with articles in the main namespace, VfD can act as a very rapid RfC/cleanup. Although it tends to be (unfortunately) more acrimonious in tone, VfDing a policy proposal often does seem to lead to thorough community consultation and comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Nominating a good faith policy page (even one that has been rejected) is clearly abusive. But any blanket ban is itself subject to abuse, allowing trolls to dump crap like Wikipedia:execution of deletionist wikipedians with alacrity. As it's essentially impossible for policy to adequately define "good faith", VfD will have to do. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I think having VFD for these decisions is probably a really REALLY bad idea. Hmmm, it might be wiser to get a consensus for deletion on the associated talk page of the policy, as part of the policy-making process itself. This would also cut down on mess on vfd, and keeps all the policy discussion in one place. Is that a decent plan? Kim Bruning 16:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I would also point out that not everything put in the Wikipedia namespace is a policy. Do I have to remind you about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Guide to Cannibilism? :) I might support saying no policy pages, since that's what it seems you're getting at, and otherwise it might be a loophole. Dmcdevit·t 18:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This section does seem to be confused. Sometimes people are talking about pages in the Wikipedia space, sometimes about policy pages. I don't know what the percentage is (anybody?), but I'd be willing to bet that a sizable majority of Wikipedia:N pages are not policy pages.

I agree with those above who'd support a ban on VfDs for policy pages, but I don't see the problem with VfDing non-policy pages. Nor do I see how holding a VfD process on the associated talk page is any different — tidier, more efficient, less "majoritarian", etc. There are too many editors whose purpose here isn't to create and improve an encyclopædia, but to push a PoV; one of their outlets is agitprop WikiProjects and other Wikipedia:N pages designed to create anti-consensus cliques. Why shouldn't the wider community be able to get together to stop such shenanigans? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there any sane wikipedian left today who still doubts that wikipedia namespace vfds are a Really Bad Idea? :-P Kim Bruning 20:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there any sane Wikipedian left today who still doubts VfD is a Really Bad Idea? :-P JRM · Talk 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Are there any sane Wikipedians? <smirk> -Satori 20:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
My friend, you honor your name. :-) JRM · Talk 20:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Exempt Policy Pages from Vfd?

Recently a number of Wikipedia pages have been nominated for deletion. I believe this is not a desired use for the Vfd process: generally, these articles turn out to be keeps, but they are a waste of time which could be spent actually debating policy rather than voting to keep the document that describes it. See:

  1. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection
  2. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Template standardisation
  3. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Infobox_standardisation
  4. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion
I propose therefore, that policy be revised such that all pages for Wikipedia policies, semi-policies, and active proposals be completely exempted from nomination for Votes for Deletion, so long as a policy is in effect, a proposal remains active, or a consensus has not been established to delete the historical information about a former policy.
Any official policy, guideline page, or historical page about either that was promoted for deletion would be speedily delisted, unless there was a discussion on the talk page with consensus or non-opposition for deletion at and at least 3 days prior to the time of nomination; with a given reason of "Changes to policies and proposals, including making them no longer policy are to be decided on the corresponding discussion pages". --Mysidia (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Reword, scope creep. VFD was originally conceived for the null namespace, and it's clearly done enough damage there already. Let's at least keep it restricted to the null namespace. At least that way we keep the wikinomic players away. Vandalism in the wikipedia: namespace would typically be quite obvious, and can be speedied. Kim Bruning 07:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

An exemption on VfD'ing proposed policies would be a bad idea. See: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/No infobox_standardization. Eugene van der Pijll 13:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Ohhhh yes, I've seen that example, and the fallout is pretty nasty. Let's not do that ever again thanks. (Folks who disagree should join Wikipedia:Mediation or WP:TINMC, so they can clean up their own damn messes.) Kim Bruning 13:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've suggested a change to Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, please see its talk page --Mysidia (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Related Issues

Unclosed nom?

Can someone figure out why Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Erythorbin acid was never closed? RJFJR 03:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though it was never actually listed on the VfD page, so technically it has not even opened. - SimonP 03:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I have completed the nomination. Given the state of the nomination, it was less work to complete it that to remove it. --Allen3 talk 13:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Welch

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matt_Welch isn't appearing on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_20 - What did I do wrong? - I noticed it was up for vfd, but couldn't find its listing on the current pages so tried to add it to the log for the right day. Richard Taylor 16:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

This VFD is listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 17, but is insanely massive. I know it's not the norm, but might I suggest changing that section in the log from a transcluded page to a linked one? My browser SCREAMS at me if I attempt to load that log page. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 15:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. People have been doing that for quite a while in case of huge nominations. I don't know if the VFD bot can handle it, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. JRM · Talk 15:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance for the recommended procedure. We used to have to do this much more often. Un-transclusion should be rare but is still occasionally necessary. Rossami (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggest Wikinetusergroups

Help them fix it - A lot of netusergroups article pages are appearing in VfD. In one, I suggested that they ought to have their own wiki and Uncle G suggested anyone could start one and the instructions are at Wiki Science, please pass this on to anyone posting this type of material, some of them are likely to be in a position to get it rolling and reduce the VfD. Alf 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Name change (again)

The name "Votes for Deletion" was based on the old Wikipedia software which actually supported voting. For prior discussion of this, see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title and Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/May 2005 Part Two#Moving_this_page.

I would like to formally propose changing the name from "Votes for deletion" (perhaps to "Articles for deletion" just to be consistent with the other deletion sub-processes).

We have discussed this before and have always concluded that "it's a good idea but not worth the effort". I've changed my mind. We are spending too much time and energy reminding users that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that the deletion process is about consensus, not vote-counting. The name itself is creating confusion and setting inappropriate expectations.

I am ready to volunteer to do the work to change the name. How much work are we talking about? Rossami (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Consensus to do anything at all

Klonimus 08:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on building a consensus

Assuming that there are no technical problems with this move, I think that this move, though a lot of work, is probably a good idea. But as I said above I think we have to build a clear consensus for this change. This is not something that can easily be undone. And It is imperative that we not add to the perception that Wikipedia is run by a "chosen few". I think we can achieve a clear consensus for this change, but it will take some work. I think the right way to go about it would not to have a vote. Rather I think we should create a page containing a statement of the reasons for this change, signed by all of us who support and "sponsor" this change. And we all try to convince other editors to sign this statement and become "sponsors". And we make the change only after a sufficient number of sponsors have signed the statement, so that it is clear to everyone that a consensus exists. Perhaps we could call the page: Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Statement in support of renaming VfD. Anyone care to turn that red link blue? Paul August ☎ 20:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

This shouldn't really be a vote, since discussion is very advanced, and the objections to Articles for deletion have been satisfied by the creation of Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Any annoyance during the change is going to be purely temporary, as any major change to any page will prove. --Titoxd 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You say that but Ta bu shi da yu is against it and it is not clar to me that there is a consensus. If the discussion is very advanced and most people are in agreement then getting 60% behind one proposal should be easy to get and will clarify what the new name should be. Philip Baird Shearer 00:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the individual discussion pages

What name to use?

Thanks for continuing to add to the list. It's a scary amount of work. I still think it's worth it (with the caveat that we should have a separate discussion about whether or not we really need to move all the archived deletion debates). Hearing no major objections, can we move on to agreeing on a new name?

Pages for deletion is imperfect but it does parallel the others - "Templates for ...", "Redirects for ...", Categories for ...", etc. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Planning the changeover

Announcement?

Where was the announcement that this was going to occur? Where was the vote that this was going to happen? Why wasn't the community given the opportunity to discuss this? Why is the page being renamed without community input? Zoe 21:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect link...?

In the color-coded section outlining the three steps for deletion, section three specifically, a large-font link takes you to a Votes for Deletion page. Shouldn't that link take you to a Pages for Deletion page? I'm still trying to figure this procedure out, and it doesn't seem to be working for me. Paul Klenk 17:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

VFD/AFD/PFD

Okay. Reading over the discussion above, I find six people in favor of Pages for deletion (Rossami, Radiant, Android, Denni, Dragons Flight, Dmcdevit), and seven in favor of Articles for deletion (SimonP, Hiding, Theo, Desiegel, Sean Curtain, Uninvited, Kim Bruning). In other words, nearly tied - although many people state that they don't mind either choice particularly much.

So it boils down to this. We need a mechanism for deletion of pages in the Wikipedia namespace. This mechanism is presently VFD. It occasionally gets abused (e.g. the "Wikipedians for Decency" disaster) but it is generally used well (e.g. the "Non-admin noticeboard", "Forbid infobox standardizing", outdated and dysfunctional index pages, never-used wikiprojects, etc, all got sensible discussion and most ended up deleted). The same applies to userspace - userpage nominations are exceedingly rare but sometimes needed.

So we can either 1) name this page "Pages for deletion" and accept the fact that pages in the Wikipedia, Help, Portal and User namespaces (and whatever new namespaces appear) can be nominated here, or 2) name this page "Articles for deletion" and fork off a new process page for the other namespaces (preferably not one per namespace, though).

My personal opinion would be that nominations from the latter category are rare enough that a separate process isn't needed. Hence, my preference for PFD. Other thoughts welcome. Radiant_>|< 11:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute—just because VfD currently also handles Wikipedia and User pages doesn't mean it has to keep doing that under a new name, right?

User pages are rarely deleted. When they are, it's even rarer for that to need discussion. Same with Wikipedia pages. Most of the junk that ends up in these namespaces is speedyable. For those few pages that need discussion, can't we just set up a new page, per Radiant? If this helps us move along from shibboleth issues on how the new page should be named, I'd be all for it. JRM · Talk 12:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't feel we even need a new page. Problem user pages and policies are best dealt with through the current conflict resolution system. The RFC process allows for more discussion, and precedent already allows us to delete content if an RFD consensus deems it necessary. While faster, the deletion system is not designed for dealing with policy and user pages, and rarely works well in these areas. - SimonP 12:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pages for Deletion seems most appropriate, the name Articles for Deletion implies a change of policy: currently Votes for Deletion is the fallback for deletion of pages that don't already have a separate deletion process. I think this fallback is useful. There's no reason not to just redirect articles for deletion to pages for deletion, though. Is there any possibility to make some kind of wildcard or subpage template type redirect? I.E. a redirect that includes the name itself and all non-existent subpages of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/(subpage) and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/(subpage) to Wikipedia:Pages for Deletion/(subpage) without actually creating each page individually? (thousands of redirects would be a waste, as would be the effort to create them) --Mysidia (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's resolve this. I mentioned above the lack of a substantive proposal for handling non-main namespace pages. As per JRM, I've been bold and created such a proposal at Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. (Please note that I haven't bothered to create any of the relevant nomination templates. It's a proposal.) I've made a start at indicating how such an area would diverge from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in particular in the areas of project and user pages, and incorporating Gtrmp's idea of a longer lag time. See the page for details.

I believe that this addresses the concerns of Radiant!, dmcdevit, Denni, Splash, Android79, and Eugene van der Pijll. The only editor whose concerns it doesn't address is Dragons flight, but that's a simple matter of adding the page to Template:deletiontools and the like in my view. Are any other editors dissatisfied with Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in combination? Uncle G 15:41:50, 2005-08-27 (UTC) I believe the move should be to Wikipedia:Pages for deletion. I don't think it should go to AfD for these reasons:

I don't see the need for what would be a very rarely-used non-mainspace articles for deletion, as Uncle G proposes. [[smoddy]] 15:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea of the NMNPFD is good, only that the name is awful... how about using Miscellaneous for Deletion as it was suggested earlier? That way, AFD and MFD can have different scopes, and PFD can stay as the consolidated parent page (as proposed elsewhere on this page) of AFD, MFD, TFD, IFD, CFD and all other "FD"s that I may have forgotten to list. --Titoxd 23:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Name vs. separation

I am ambivalent about much of the issues above. But because there is not yet any consensus for "AFD" or "PFD", it makes sense to me to not yet separate "Articles for deletion" from "Miscellaneous for deletion", for lack of a better name. Maurreen (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Slightly BOLDer plan

Am I being too bold here? It might be nice to consolidate structures while we're at it, with a link structure as follows:

Maybe that's 1 or 2 bridges too far though. Pages for deletion is an ok name for the entire deletion process, but not for a part of it (IMHO).

You might have also noticed that I've snuck in Misc Items as a separate thing. I'm becoming convinced that this might be a really good idea. While Misc Items almost never happen, at the same time they're the most likely to cause all kinds of evil wikinomic stuff to occur. Grepping VfD for these items has always been a pain, and it'd definately be nice to have them on their own page.

Oh yeah, I'd like to start implementing at the soonest, so if we can't get consensus on this right now, I'll just let it be. We can just go with wherever we've gotten so far. Kim Bruning 17:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

One process or two?

One of the key stumbling blocks in the above discussion seems to be that some people want to explicitly seperate Wikipedia/User/etc spaces from the main article space deletion process. Others want to keep them together. I would like to have a straw poll (i.e. not binding and not too evil) on this specific issue to see where people stand because the above is getting hard to follow and fairly convoluted with the issue of various names and abbreviations. Let's decide whether we want one process or two and then work out what to call them.

Separate

I don't mind straw polling for a while longer, but most people seem to prefer a separate process for non-mainspace-stuff. And of course SimonP and Hiding make good points that different criteria apply. So supposing we get consensus for that, how would we call it? Also, regarding its function, my first thought would be to model it after WP:TFD (that is, no subpages). It would otherwise use the same discussion format and "votes" etc, and would apply to all namespaces not covered by another process (i.e. Wikipedia/Help/Portal/User and any new ones, with the added notice that we should be very lenient about userspaces). Of course that's assumption on my part, any comments or objections? Radiant_>|< 23:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming VfU

I strongly support renaming VfU, but it should become simply Wikipedia:Undeletion, WP:U for short. (These are presently redirects to Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops; which can be moved to Wikipedia: Undeletion for sysops; WP:US. These names are straightforward, and avoid confusion with Wikipedia:Deletion reform Septentrionalis 20:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

One at a time. Let's worry about AFD for now. --Titoxd 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Bot change over

I plan to change the code in VFD Bot so that the new pages will begin starting 1 September 2005 (UTC). VFD Bot will begin editing and creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpages starting that day. If you have any objections, please list them immediately on my talk page. I will forego any changes if an object is raised. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

More consistency

The discussion over naming consistency has reminded me of something else that has been bugging me for a while. Why is it that VfD, IfD, and RfD have new entries listed at the bottom, while CfD and TfD have new ones listed at the top? We are all quite used to it, but it has to be confusing for newcomers. - SimonP 18:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Failure to close VfDs properly

Some admins seem to be ignoring or twisting the clear consensus expressed in Vfd's, For example, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sea anenomes, where there were 10 votes for Redirect and one for delete, none for keep. But the result was reported as The result of the debate was keep and of course feel free to redirect. --Tony Sidaway. IMO this is ignoring the cleqar consensus, and disrespecting the people who mposted comments. It is arguably also WP:POINT. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion says: the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus: Keep; Delete; Cleanup or BJAODN; Merge and/or redirect; Transwiki. It seems to me that an admin not willing to accept a consensus for any of those outcomes should not be closing VfDs. I will admint that a merge of a large articel can be a tricky and complex bit of work, but the admin could certianly put one of the merge templates on the relevant article along with a note about the VfD result. But a redir is easy for the closing admin to do. True, it doesn't require admin powers. Neither does a keep. But if an admin undertakes to close a VfD with a clear consensus to redir, then i think reporting the result as "redirect" and doing the redir are part of the admin's duties. I think that in the course of the rename and reconstruction of the VfD page, we should make this very clear in the rewritten instructions. DES (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I haven't seen anyone ever say "Nyah, nyah, you didn't get 10 unanimous delete votes, so I'm taking the tag off." If that it supposed to be a comment about Tony extending the process on a couple of recent VfD discussions where there were only a few delete votes and no keep votes, then while I disagree with Tony's conclusion, he did not "take the tag off" but simply concluded that two votes was not a strong consensus. Personally, I read almost every VfD nomination and don't bother to vote delete on most of the ones I consider "no-brainers" (which are most of the nominations). If dozens of editors have looked at a nomination and the result is only two deletes but no keeps, I think that means no one wants to keep it. But that is my opinion. I think we all acknowledge that there is a lot of subjectivity in this process and we should assume good faith. -- DS1953 14:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's what we do in practice. I think it's all we can do. For a very long time indeed (I checked) we've had "redirect" closes being interpreted unambiguously as "edit the article to replace the current contents with a redirect", and this is what the guide to VfD said should happen. As Rossami has said people who want something else to happen can say so--appeals to the purported ignorance of the average user aren't material, if the current state of affairs is that a person can vote either "redirect" or "delete and redirect" then how can it be said that there exists any kind of problem? --Tony SidawayTalk 04:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

But that isn't what was done in the case above. there were 10 votes for redirect, 1 vote for delete, no votes for keep. It wasn't closed as "redirect" and the article wasn't "edited to replace the current contents with a redirect", at least not by the closer. The closer closed it as "keep" (a result for which there were 0 votes), and did not perform the redir, nor indicate on the relevsnt talk page that a redir had been determiend by consensus in a VfD discussiuon. I wasn't arguing for a "delete and redir" that wiped out the history, at least not in this case. just that 10R 1D 0K be closed as R, not K. DES (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
But "keep" and "redirect" are synonymous. Any article that is kept can be redirected by any user; any article that is redirected can be reinstated as a complete article. Eugene van der Pijll 07:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? Tony Sidaway gave the green light to convert the article to a redirect, so isn't it much easier to just make the redirect and move on? There are several valid reasons why Tony may have hesitated in doing so himself. In practice, there have been times where I have hesitated doing so as well. For example, if there is no clear agreement as to where to redirect (such as this debate), or if there are some wishes to merge certain parts of the content (such as in the disputed debate), I can well understand a slight hesitation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Unify for Simplicity, and more consistency?

Consider how much these changes effect the difficulty of nominating a text page for deletion that needs to be removed. Now nominators will have to understand that Wikipedia: and other namespaces, that these pages are somehow special (other than being set aside from the main space), that the procedure for nominating is different, and has its own set of templates and different set of instructions to use.

This potentially creates a procedural obstacle to nominating things for deletion.

Users will have to understand these exceptions to the normal nomination procedure for articles to respect a minority of cases, this is a mess. So why not use the same procedure for everything.. so that it looks mostly the same to the user, i.e. no matter what kind of thing is being nominated for deletion steps I and II are the same -- always use a subpage, since it works well -- and make the primary distinction which log a debate is listed in?.

Everything being a subpage of the same area. I.E. Pages for Deletion would be used for Images, Templates, etc. But the discussion page for deleting Image:Blah would appear at Wikipedia:Pages_for_Deletion/Image:Blah. (And it is the Image:* that distinguishes it). The nominator would then transclude the subpage in a Wikipedia:Pages_for_Deletion/Log/Image/day, by picking from a menu (in Step III) of "what kind of thing" is being nominated for deletion. And depending on how much traffic an area gets, the main Images for Deletion, templates for deletion, etc pages, would transclude or link recent days.

This would also be more versatile in that it would allow areas that get a lot of traffic to be further subdivided, i.e. if many biographies are being nominated, then an appropriate option could be added for biographies to Step III for the deletion menu, and they could be split to their own log. --Mysidia (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment/proposal on all the debates over name and inclusion

I haven't had chance to read all of the discussions in all of the many places they seem to be happening, so this is a sort of meta-comment on all of them. Imho Vfd should be renamed "articles for deletion". We should direct new users to a unified introduction page (Wikipedia:Deletion process perhaps) that explains that different types of page are dealth with differently and note where each is discussed:

What do you want to nominate for deletion?

I know this creates a new process, but PfD will be a slow moving, catchall place that will stop debates about user: and wikipedia: namespace pages getting drowned out by the (normally inaccurate) NOOB (none of our business) votes that some VfDs in this namespace currently attract. Any user namespace page nominated for deletion must be accompanied by a note on the user talk: page of the user concerned, e.g. if User Thryduulf/Geonamesongs was nominated for deletion, the nominator must note this on User talk:Thryduulf. Thryduulf 09:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the introduction page you want is Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not the deletion process which deals almost solely with the mechanics of closing a deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The catch-all process you refer to can now be found at WP:NFD --Titoxd 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Will an admin please harmonise the templates? They've pointed to votes, pages and articles in the last few days. Now they point at votes again, but the pages are title articles — but only after a redirect. All the changes cause problem when a newbie VfDer doesn't subst: the template, and their link gets broken. If you are going to conduct a wheel war, please do it where the rest of us don't have to clean up. -Splash 00:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. I am actively campaigning to stop this absurdity. Does anyone realise just how many pages have been placed under the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion namespace? Now if I want to check to see if an article has been on VfD, I must check two spots. If the article has been up for deletion, we'll possibly have two VfDs. This confusion has already made me look like a fool on Gordon Cheng. I'm not a happy camper and I have rolled back. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Closing an old page?

Could an admin with a minute to spare have a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hacked? I've just stumbled across it - it's not linked from any VfD pages. First listed on the 11th - presumably it fell by the wayside in a cleanup without being dealt with. It looks like it reached consensus to delete even without my voting, so probably needs deleted and closed.

Thanks. Shimgray 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Decidedly deleted. [[smoddy]] 23:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. Wonder how many more of these are languishing out there? Shimgray 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Where we are

All right, part of the changeover has been completed. WP:NFD is now active (and a discussion about its name is going on in its talk page), so I assume that the move to WP:AFD can now proceed. However, there's a revert war currently underway at ((Vfd)). There's a citing of "lack of consensus" but reading all the discussion above, I don't see any objections besides "It's a lot of work", "You're going to mess up the page for a while" and "I don't care." Are there any objections to the move in substance, that haven't been addressed? --Titoxd 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I rather suspect there'd have been a lot less pissing off if people hadn't started reverting the templates all over the place. And yes, those being bold should have taken a grace period and given better notice. But the fact is now that things are progressing and the world isn't collapsing and it's only a name. If we were to simply let it go, and quit fighting over the templates, in a few days time it will all be irrelevant. -Splash 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

We are pissing people off!

Quoting myself from template talk:Vfd "I am all for the name change, but this process is going too fast! causing problems and pissing off editors, and creating ill-will. We need to have some perspective. VfD is one of the most central and emotional areas of Wikipedia. We need to proceed with care! It is not enough to do the right thing, we should also do it in the right way." IMHO, we should decide what to do first before doing it. Paul August ☎ 19:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good change. So there :p Dan100 (Talk) 15:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I think it's a good change too. So here ;-) Paul August ☎ 02:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Voting on making sure vfd isn't voting?

Err, yeah, right, whatever. Philip Baird Shearer, I'm going to assume you had a massive brainfart there for a second, but seriously: Do Not Do That Again. I'm serious. I'm very angry at you. Kim Bruning 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

To people caught in the large RV. Sorry about that, please check to see if you've been affected, and please fix it if I've caused any discussion to accidentally vanish :-/ Kim Bruning 01:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why couldn't you restore all the comments you deleted? Kim, I respect you (and am glad you didn't just delete this page this time) and may even agree with you, but can't you use discussion first? Did you have to just revert? And more importantly, you must tone down the language! I know you know about WP:CIV, and calling people idiots does nothing for our encycolpedia. (You're starting to remind me of Ed, and not in a good way.) Dmcdevit·t 02:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Sowwy. I'm getting a little tired of people pushing votes all the time, especially in places where folks are discussing getting rid of them. I guess I'm really letting it get to me :-/ Once upon a time on my RfA, someone went like "I wonder if Kim will still be such a nice person in 1 years time, or if adminship will have corrupted him." I'm afraid I know the answer :-( Kim Bruning 02:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Nah. Take a 2-day wikibreak. I've blocked your account for that time so you can do that. :P As if I could... --Titoxd 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
HEY! The vote is still there! #$*#($*(*$! :-( Kim Bruning 02:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Damn! I removed it. I sat here and deleted it. Grrrr. I'll do it again. -Splash 02:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Gone. -Splash 03:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Phew. Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 03:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Aquillion (talk · contribs) voted after Splash cleaned it up. Probably an edit conflict. --Titoxd 03:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
It looks like what happened is that Splash reverted his own deletion of it to go back and save the comments [2], I (unknowingly) voted during that brief period [3], Splash reinstated the votes again [4], and then accidently reverted himself [5]. I did wonder about the oddness of voting on a proposal to reduce the perception that Wikipedia relies on vote totals, but decided that since the idea was to sort out the opinions, I might as well put mine there instead of down below. Aquillion 23:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I restored it, but blocked it off rather appropriately with something that seemed to fit this page :) I hope we can turn off the election without losing the comments contained in it is all. Dmcdevit·t 04:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Such an elegant turn of phrase Kim Bruning! I am not surprised that people who participate in editing this page, so totally ignore Wikipedia guidelines, it is par for the course at VFD. If a WP:RM request to move this page has been requested. The the WP:RM guidelines should be followed. To say that there is a clear consensus on this page is odd as even if there is a consensus the way the discussion has developed it is far from clear. There are several people who are objecting to the move and it is not clear what, if the move is to take place, the new name should be. If the move is to take place it should be done with a clear consensus and a clear listing of opinions is the best way to do it. I do not see what the hast has to be when a delay of a few days would show how large a consensus there is for a move. Philip Baird Shearer 08:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? I see the request above but its closed already... huh?!?!?!? "BIG RV. Some id10t tried to implement voting on the "let's make sure vfd is not voting" discussion. Um. Ok. Undoing the screwage" WHAT?!?!? Anyway, I'm restoring the request thing because I think it's a good idea. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
That's nonsense! People maybe have hinted at it for years but that would take into a lot of wild assumptions
The Jimbo comment seems rather irrelevant to this change. In addition, the fact that there was "Pages for deletion" first shows that while there may have been a lot of discussion, there wasn't the right kind of discussion. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Ryan Norton and Philip Baird Shearer,

Majority voting is banned on wikipedia, because it's incompatible with writing an encyclopedia. You can't vote on the facts. To make up for this, we use a form of community consensus instead. People occaisionally break this rule, and we need to fix it then.

Ironically, votes for deletion actually does follow the "no majority voting" rule, but the name is strange (hence the name change).

At the same time, apparently people haven't been watching WP:RM at all, since someone seems to have set up a procedure that spams majority votes all across wikipedia. That's definately not good.

So, in any case, someone walks into a discussion about "Let's make it clearer that majority voting is not allowed and rename this page" and goes, (and I kid you not):

Hey Guys, Let's hold a majority vote!

In fact: he actually used a level 2 heading. That's much bigger and bolder.

Seriously: How did you expect folks to respond?

Kim Bruning 13:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a VfD-style discussion over the change, which only seems appropriate. As for how I expect people to respond - I expect them to calmly take into consideration whatever goes on there, no just remove it (this is a talk page too, so removing stuff is discouraged). In addition, as for the level 2 heading, well that's perfectly appropriate if the person wanted to do it. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
You mean requiring 60% majority? Yeah, right. Kim Bruning 19:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Um.... yeah... that would be a consensus (well 60-80 actually)... LOL Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What has been written above by Kim Bruning looks like Microsoft's FUD. If you are referring to my contribution. I would like to present a few facts:

KB, I would have thought in this case you would be pleased that you only have to persuade 60% or more of the people to agree with you for the move to be agreed to under WP:RM guidelines. Would you prefer the threshold in this case to be 70% or more (as for VFD) before a rough consensus for a move is agreed to? Philip Baird Shearer 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, FFS. Not people using polls to try to sort things out again!? Consensus is consensus, not some arbitrary per cent. If you fail to understand this, I worry deeply. And yes, votes are banned.
James F. (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In the Westminster system of government, if one is a member of a Cabinet then all decisions are consensual collective and inclusive. If as a member does not agree with a decision (s)he can resign from the Government as did several British ministers over the invasion of Iraq. This means that in the Westminster system of government the cabinet always collectively decides all decisions and all ministers are responsible for arguing in favour of any decision made by the cabinet. It is a major cornerstone of the Westminster system.

Wikipedia is very different, for all but uncontroversial trivial propositions, it is unusual for decisions on Wikipedia talk pages to operate on a true consensus. Instead they operate on a rough consensus where it is recognised that a minority are in decent. The question then arises is how large must the majority be to ignore the opinions of a minority? Not everyone who has expressed an opinion about this move is in agreement with the move so there is is no consensus. In this case if the page is to be moved it will only be moved with a rough consensus in agreement. Unless there is a place for people to clearly indicate what their opinion is how can one know if one has a rough consensus and an agreed interpretation of the size of the rough consensus?

James F. you state "votes are banned" under which policy (not guidelines) are votes banned and how was the decision arrived at for such a ban? Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Discontent over VfD namechange

I'd like to voice my discontent over how this "process" (in quotes because its not really a process) is being handled, as at least from here its clear not everyone agrees with the move. Meanwhile Uncle G's bot is rapidly changing page names... not only that but the VfD template is locked and there is a revert war going on there between the admins. This gives off the appearance that just a few admins got together and unilaterally decided to change things, pretending there was a consensus. (I generally agree with the name change but the way its being handled leaves much to be desired...) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. Major change: of course it is a major change! But we need it, because the idea that VfD runs on majority votes has been causing problems as of late.
  2. Clear consensus: the only one who has objected to this move is Ta bu shi da yu. He's a respected user, so I take his opinion seriously, but still, that is only one vote (pardon the word) out of how many?
  3. Reasonable time: how much is reasonable? Long enough until no one wants to do it anymore? That goes against one of Wikipedia's tenets, WP:BOLD.
  4. The new name issue seemed pretty much settled: Articles for Deletion would be the choice, contingent on the creation of WP:NFD or similar. That has been done.
  5. Old archived pages: These pages aren't as visible as the main VfD pages (which seem to be causing most of the complaints) so they can be moved with a bot quickly and without causing major disruption. Uncle G has already offered to do that.
  6. Disrupted things for users: everything this size will cause problems for the users. However, by doing revert wars on templates and dragging this discussion longer than it needs causes even more problems.
--Titoxd 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Clear consensus: the only one who has objected to this move is Ta bu shi da yu" I think that this is misleading. There seem to be four different types of concerns:

BTW the above should not be seen that any of theses people actually agree with the list placing I have put them in, it is just my reading of this page and I may well have misunderstood a person's position, which is why I think a WP:RM poll is the best way to clarify the situation. Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

I think this list is very had to follow as a WP:RM list. So I propose that the Proposals are laid out in the standard WP:RM format, first the proposal from the WP:RM page then the proposed options. In line with the WP:RM guidelines Approval voting is encouraged and a rough consensus is (60% or more). You can add more proposals and vote for more than one proposal and change you votes at any time up to the close of the poll, but you can not "oppose" a proposal. Usually a vote is open on WP:RM for five days from the time of posting, but that can be extended and in this case I think the counting should start from the time stamp with my signature at the end of this paragraph as the requested move was not laid out clearly on this talk page and this is a change seems to involve a lot of work so there should be no need for haste Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to move copied from WP:RM:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion → Wikipedia:Pages for deletion (or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) – This notion has come up several times before. User:Rossami has proposed it this time around on the grounds that we are spending too much time reminding editors that the word "Votes" in the title is misleading. A concrete migration plan is being formed, locating all of the ramifications that this change will have. Some peripheral changes have already been made. Uncle G 23:51:49, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Add # Support followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

No move. Page name should remain "Votes for deletion"

  1. Support I cannot express my disagreement more. Do you know how many articles we have in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion namespace? The mind boggles at the amount of work it would take to move the articles - even with a bot things might be missed. A terrible idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC) -- "oppose move" taken from the WP:RM page Philip Baird Shearer
  2. Support now, if anyone is still bothering to look at votes. I said below that I thought it was just useless; but the amount of resistance and problems it's encountering has shown that it's both useless and disruptive. While the intention is good, this simply isn't worth it. Aquillion 02:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Article For Deletion sounds like it has been already decided that they will be deleted. If people can't bear the name VFD at least make it Nominations For Deletion or something else that indicates there will still be discussion and consensus seeking. RJFJR 16:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. if anyone is still looking for votes. Moving is too disruptive, and not worth all the problems that are likely. Also thoroughly dislike how this change has happened...--Mairi 02:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. This entire process doesn't seem efficient, and I agree that moving this would be disruptive and not nearly worth the effort that it would take to do so. Besides, vote isn't so misleading, as the word simply means to express a preference for one of two or more alternatives, which is exactly what the process aims to do. So some people don't understand that "wikipedia is not a democracy" -- you are going to change the title because some people don't understand it? That's not going to make a great deal of difference in my opinion. Parallel or Together? 14:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support There is no need for a title change. In practice, VfD's are usualy resolved by supermajority, not consensus. Changing the name is not going to change that, and it is therefore a lot of trouble for nothing. Johntex\talk 18:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Pages for deletion"

Proposed move to "Articles for deletion"

  1. Support. This shouldn't really be a vote, since discussion is very advanced, and the objections to Articles for deletion have been satisfied by the creation of Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Any annoyance during the change is going to be purely temporary, as any major change to any page will prove. --Titoxd 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Let's make the page "Articles for deletion."  Denelson83  23:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support provided an appropriate (and well-named) separate page for considering deeltion of pages in the wikipedia, user, adn perhaps talk namespaces is active. DES (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, obviously. I find it surreal that this has gone to a vote at this stage, but what the hell. Just do it, for Zarquon's sake. sjorford (?!) 12:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Good idea. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Just do it. Even though I, er, kinda said I would help out with the transition, I haven't at all yet, and I haven't noticed any problems with pages not working, etc. android79 00:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. I was thinking about this last week (and how it could be done), I go away for the weekend and look what happens... the wub "?/!" 12:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Like others I don't think a vote is the best way to handle this. I think there is the notion that the only choice is to just do this change anyway, based on the level of consensus achieved so far, or have a vote. But that is a false dichotomy. I've suggested other ways of building a clear consensus (above), but no one seems particularly interested in them. Oh well, I still want to see this change happen, I still believe it will help make the deletion process better. There are only three objections I've seen. First, some say that it is a waste of time — but if it is a waste, it will be a voluntary waste. Second some object because of are unhappy with the way this has been handled (I agree that it wasn't handled as well as it could have been) — but, to object on that account seems like cutting off my nose to spite my face. Third, some fear it may be disruptive — but if handled correctly the disruption should be minimal and in any case it will be temporary. In short, any benefits will last for the lifetime of the project, while, if we are lucky, the "costs" will be amortized over many many many years. Paul August ☎ 17:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, though adding yet another "for Deletion" page to deal with non-articles is a minor problem. The process is going smoother than I anticipated; we should have done this a year ago. Denni☯ 00:32, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
  10. Support Dan100 (Talk) 15:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support and get it over with - SoM 19:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I could not work out from this list who was in favour of which Proposal, so please move your opinion to the appropriate Proposal above and if a proposal does not exist which covers your opinion please add it. Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The "list" referred to above is the section #Consensus to do anything at all which this section was directly above when I first wrote it. Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have re-added "Pages for deletion" as another proposal because it is mentioned in the WP:RM request and in the move template at the top of this page. Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If in your opinion more than one proposal is a credible option, you can express you approval by placing you support under as many proposals as you think are appropriate. Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was one rough move that should have been done differently. Now that it's done though it seems ok, although personally I like "votes for deletion" since its humerous while the "articles for deletion" is rather drab, I must say Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Week at a View

Is this ever going to get fixed? If not, can we remove the whole section? It's silly to have a section called "week at a view" which only has links to today and yesterday. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I will be fixing the code for the VFD List... now AFD List sometime this US Labor Day weekend. Please bare with me. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the state is supposed to be currently, but my bookmarks (and hand-coded URLs) for WP:AFD/Yesterday (which was a hand-change from WP:VFD/Yesterday) appear to have broken; all I get is the 31 August page, even if I purge page cache and/or my own browser cache. Or is the "yesterday" alias no longer going to be supported? -- MCB 00:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't being updated. And I'm kind of waiting for everything to settle down a bit before I start reupdating the AFD List. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Bot wars?!

Ok... now we are entering the science fiction domain, aren't we? Do I see bots involved in an edit war? Ther's no way we simple humans can keep up the pace if this becomes usual procedure.
We just had an AFD bot creating an Afd new log page, followed by an Uncle G's 'bot starting it again.
Will you please stop? Nabla 00:23:05, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

AFD is born out of VFD's old code, which is that it posts the new page one hour ahead. Supposely, Uncle G has made the claim that his bot isn't suppose to edit if the page is already created. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I see it is working properly now. Fine. My aim was solely to call the comunity's attention that having bots involved in editing controversial pages may became a real danger to the wiki spirit, which includes that you may change back things you don't agree with. Nabla 23:01:05, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
If a bot does something you don't like, change it back. With an explanatory edit summary of course, and a note on the talk page if you like. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"You don't have to vote on every nomination"

Would it be possible to make this particular aspect of VfD AfD etiquette more than just a suggestion? Yes, this does happen every so often. android79 13:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's best as is. Some people do vote on a lot of nominations, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. It's really personal preference, and trying to "enforce" this more would be messy anyway Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm talking about voting on every single nomination in a day-page, to the point of offering up a (pointless) Abstain vote if the editor hadn't made up his mind yet. Maybe "Don't vote if you don't have an opinion" would be a good thing to have. android79 13:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be a big enough problem to enforce this. Also, I don't think voting should be discouraged when quite a few nominations have to be relisted because of not enough participation. -- Kjkolb 01:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Motion to move into General Discussion

Too often, especially on disputed nominations, all you see is a long list of:

...

This example is clearly contrived, but what ends up happening is that every person keeps on stating their reasons and there is very little conversation.

For relatively undisputed nominations, this is a fine way of doing things, but other times, it would be more productive to handle discussions talk page style. Is there any accepted procedure of "motioning" for this sort of change? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Lets pitch in anyway

I think even those who mildly disagree such as myself should pitch in a bit in the move, at least to get things more smooth around here (I already took care of redirects etc. for vfd top/bottom templates I think).

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


Old VFDs

I see that old VFDs from at least 28th August have remained unresolved by Admins. It's quite sad that we seem to have been so caught up in this insular navel-gazing over reform to VFD rather than doing the actual work of maintaining the encyclopedia. Personally I hope that this reform process is over as soon as possible so that people can return to productive work. Leithp 11:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My Greatest Concern

My greatest concern the five pillars of Wikipedia are slowly being changed to make it easier to delete by Vfd. This will allow "blocks of users" to delete and control. --Poorman

How are the five pillars being changed? Deletion of articles isn't even mentioned there.
When adding new sections to talk pages, please do so at the bottom. You can automatically do this by clicking the little "+" button next to edit this page (if you are using the default skin). Also, please refrain from using ALL CAPS, as many editors find it hard to read and/or consider it equivalent to shouting, and sign your comments with ~~~~. android79 14:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reformat of VfD Page

This is just a suggestion, and I am a newbie, so feel free to ignore me...

In the Template at the bottom of this page (Template:AfDFooter), the third step in the table states that contributors should follow a specified link (created by the wikicode "[((SERVER))((localurl:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/((CURRENTYEAR))_((CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN))_((CURRENTDAY))|action=edit)) <big>this edit link</big>]" (eg this edit link) and add a comment at the bottom of the page.

What I suggest is that, as the page this link points to a page which is specific to that date, to change the format of that page so that the date is not a heading inside it, and change the edit link so that it has "&section=new" at the end of it (wikicode = "[((SERVER))((localurl:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/((CURRENTYEAR))_((CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN))_((CURRENTDAY))|action=edit&section=new)) <big>this edit link</big>]" eg = this edit link).

This means that, by clicking the link, the contributor is shown an uncluttered, empty, textarea which will then automatically create a new point at the end of the target page. This will also mean that a TOC on the date page will headline each of the items for deletion.

--Lucanos 01:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
That may be faster, but some people might get into the habit of typing the section title in the top, rather than their subpage. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Pages on votes for deletion

(I'm posting this here because it's more likely that the other users who have been going through and listing orphaned vfds are watching this talk page than the category's talk page, and I hate duplication of labor.)

As of right now, everything listed in this category is either properly relisted on afd, or has a closed vfd discussion with result to transwiki and is listed in the transwiki queue. The links from the pages also all go to the appropriate afd/vfd discussions (a fair number broke when the link to [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/((PAGENAME))]] was removed from ((afd))). Newly afd'd articles currently go into Category:Pages for deletion.

The single exception is Teletraffic quality of service, which I don't know quite what to do with. Does anyone know its status? —Cryptic (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Closing an AfD with result "no consensus"

How do I close an AfD whose result is "no consensus"? Do I simply treat it as "keep", i.e. close the AfD discussion and remove the AfD notice from the article? Is there any special additional procedure to let people know there was no consensus to keep? — JIP | Talk 16:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, its a keep (some admins write "no consensus(default to keep)" but many just write "no consensus"). I guess the only difference is that when you make a note on the talk page you list the result as no consensus rather than keep. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Fernando Rizo has been relisting AfD discussions which have not acquired enough votes for a consensus. For example, he has added a couple of AfDs, which only acquired two or three votes, from September 1 to September 11. Isn't this the same as a result of "no consensus"? I understand that an AfD discussion with only a few votes doesn't have consensus, but I'm getting contradictory advice about what to do with them: effectively treat as "keep" or immediately relist? — JIP | Talk 07:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
By long tradition, "no consensus" defaults to "keep" (but may be renominated without prejudice after a reasonable amount of time). Discussions which garner few participants, however, are less well decided. Some admins are uncomfortable closing discussions without some minimum number of people commenting. Other admins observe that lots of people had the opportunity to join the discussion and chose not to. They argue that because we're not supposed to vote on everything, the non-participants can generally be presumed to have agreed with the direction the discussion was going (keep or delete). Having no firm rule, we leave it to the experience and discretion of the individual admin - a judgment to make based on the facts at hand. Rossami (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I replied to JIP's question on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Notice about changes to Articles for deletion

Any changes to the page that causes AFD Bot to not work properly should be reported to AllyUnion immediately. Such problems include: Old pages missing, new pages missing, the creation of new pages are missing, etc. Thank you for your time and patience. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

CSD A7 clarification proposal

CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal during deletion and undeletion debates. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particualrly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

disputed merge

Hello. There is currently a dispute going on at the methodological naturalism (MN) article. One editor has been trying to merge it into naturalism (philosophy) (PN). Other editors oppose the merge. The editor redirected MN to PN, and was reverted twice. Another editor put the article up for AFD to let people vote on what to do with the article, but the person who wants to merge removed the AFD on the article saying "no one wanted to delete the article, so AFD doesn't apply". He replaced the AFD with a "two versions" flag. An article RFC was filed, and some responses came in to keep the articles separate, but the editor who wants to do the merge still insists he is right, and has indicated he will be changing the "two versions" to primarily redirect with the disputed version being teh original separate article. This is a content dispute that has thus far been unresolved.

The AFD page says "Articles for Deletion (AfD) was created to provide a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic articles".

My question is this: Is an AfD an acceptable way to resolve whether an article should be merged or kept separate? It seems to fit the original definition of "what should be done with problematic articles". The argument against an AFD was that since no one suggested "deleting" the article, then an AFD is inappropriate. What someone was suggesting was "merge/redirect" and those opposed say "keep". Anyway, I've looked at all the options under merging an article and none of them have any voting mechanisms or anything to resolve the content dispute around something that is strictly merge or keep. So, the question is would an AFD be a legitimate way to decide what to do with the article even though none of the original editors say "delete"?

Otherwise, I see no other way to resolve this content dispute and a slow revert war will continue, along with all teh debates that are spilling over into the articles related to the article in question. FuelWagon 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No, AFD is not the appropriate place to decide whether an article should be merged or kept separate. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy which has a long section on other remedies that should be pursued before deciding that the article must be deleted.
You are correct that the pages on merging have no discussion of voting. That is by intent. Voting is not our chosen means of making decisions. We use discussion and attempt to reach consensus. By the way, we don't really "vote" on AFD, either. The collected opinions and comments inform the closing admin's decision of whether or not a rough consensus has been achieved in the time allowed at AFD. Merger decisions are not bounded by time and can continue until consensus is achieved.
If you are truly having difficulty resolving the issue, please review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for some options. Rossami (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding old deletion debates on talk page subpages

Would it be an idea to move various old (~2004 and back) deletion debates that are floating around on (sometimes orphanded) subpages around the place to a subpage as AfD instead? For example move Talk:List of people who have publicly denied being gay/Delete to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have publicly denied being gay and such? It would make them easier to find for "novice" users (not all of them link to the article in question), and also satisfy my personal sense of "tidynes" :P Anyway if others think it would be a good idea we could make a little mini project out of tracking these down and moving them into the AfD "central archives". A quick Google search] revealed only 185 candidates with a few false positives, so it should not be a huge task. --Sherool 20:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please list any you find at the appropriate page or archive of Wikipedia:Archived deletion debates. I'd have no objections if you move them also. Rossami (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Useful tool - is it possible?

I've an idea for a useful tool for the AFD pages, but I'm not sure if it would work given the daily transcriptions. Is there any way of putting a link at the top of each day's transcription leading to the previous day and next day's lists? it would be very useful if navigating a few days' worth of AFDs (something which I'm sure I'm not the only one to do). Grutness...wha? 06:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Allow limited deletion right for non-admins?

I've been thinking, would it be a good idea to allow a limited deletion right for non-admins? The way I'd see it, a logged-in user would be allowed to delete a page that only they themselves, and not anyone other, has edited, even if they weren't an administrator. There could potentially also be a time limit, after which time has passed since the article's initial creation, it can no longer be deleted by a non-admin. What do you think? — JIP | Talk 09:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There are some talk about implementing a "truewiki" (or some such) deletion system. Basicaly anyone can "delete" a page just by blanking it. That is blanked pages have links to them turn red, don't show up in searches etc. If a vandal delete a page in this way anyone can still revert the blanking to "undelete" the page. I think this would be a neat idea. Vandals already blank pages so no big change there, we just revert it (such "deletions" would show up on your watchlist and such naturaly), and as for vandals reverting delets of nonsense, well they do that today too, if it become a problem we block the page as we always do. --Sherool 11:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I've been thinking about my idea and the idea you mentioned, and I've come up with a proposition of two levels:
  1. Pseudo-delete: Change links to red and prevent from showing up in searches, but be plainly noticeable when viewed. Can be performed and reversed by: anyone.
  2. "Real" delete: Just like deletes work now. Can be performed and reversed by: a logged-in user who was the only contributor to the page, and admins.
Admins can "really" delete pages that have had multiple contributors, other logged-in users can only "really" delete pages only they have edited, and anonymous IPs can't "really" delete anything. How does this sound? — JIP | Talk 16:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
It sounds ok, I suppose... but I don't really agree with doing that. It's very much like instruction creep, and given how easy it is to register an account and an army of sockpuppets, the system is a bunch of red tape that's easy for vandals to circumvent. --Idont Havaname 01:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if we only consider my original suggestion, sockpuppet accounts would not be able to circumvent such a system. User:Willy on Wheels is able to perform his vandalism, because any logged-in user can move any non-protected page, regardless of who contributed to it. In my system, a logged-in non-admin user would only be able to delete pages that only they contributed to. Even if the only other contributor were an anonymous IP that later signed up for the account, the user wouldn't be able to delete it. That means a logged-in non-admin user would only be able to delete pages they started themselves. Moving a page, as it currently works, preserves the edit history, so moving a page that has been edited by someone else won't make either the new page or the redirect left behind eligible for deletion. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Reverting test deletions would put considerable strain on the system. Especially, under your system, if they delete the Sandbox. The sandbox's history of deleting and undeleting would just crash the whole Wikipedia. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
A non-admin would not be able to delete the Sandbox, as other people have already edited it. OTOH, if an admin were to delete the Sandbox, a non-admin could then start a new one in its place, which could lead to a long delete-undelete cycle which would crash Wikipedia. All that needs to be done is to forbid any admin from deleting the Sandbox. — JIP | Talk 14:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion already incorporates this and there usually isn't much of a backlog there. Broken S 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Change is good. Good Job to all!

File:VBcan.jpg
Too right, well done!

The mountain has been moved! (more or less). I think the name change to AfD, has been a very good thing, and as far as I can tell, the actual change has gone very smoothly. I think all of the folks who helped to make this happen, deserve a round of thanks and congratulations! Paul August ☎ 16:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A bit of the bubbly?
Say Amen, Somebody?. Paul August ☎ 03:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll burst into flames if I say that. However, a hearty pat on the back and some suds all around are in order.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok That's more like it, drinks and music. Paul August ☎ 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Early nomination closure problem

I've noticed that when some nominations are closed very soon after they are listed, it inhibits comments on the nominations directly above them because there is very little space between them and apparently people don't see it or think it's part of the closed nomination. When the top article doesn't get any comments before the bottom article is closed, the problem is even more acute. Can something be changed, so that there is more room between closed nominations? Thanks -- Kjkolb 03:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The template ((at)) could have its CSS tweaked so that the margin-top was larger. Right now the margins are all set to 0. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It looks like someone changed it. Thanks -- Kjkolb 00:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

New template

There has been a new template called Template:Articleballot. This template is supposted to reduce the space taken from all the AfD pages that act as templates on the AfD log. --SuperDude 15:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

afd2 change

I would like to suggest a small change to step 2 of the nomination process. When using the second template for creating the actual consensus gathering page for deletion, I suggest that the template automatically create the first vote from the nominator as an implied delete. As per recent conversation on the AfD process, the nominator is now usually adding a vote now along with the creation of the page. It would help keep the look of the pages consistent, and would automate a step that is currently implied anyhow. An example: 

((subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason why the page should be deleted)) ~~~~ 
*'''Delete''' per nomination. ~~~~

Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah, good point. Well, if it were part of the suggested 'paste this' text from step two, then the nominator would be able to change the nomination before saving. As the text would remain intact for 99% of the time, this shouldn't impose a burden. Just a thought.... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact, I created the AfD discussion for Stacy Burke, and voted keep (not abstain) myself. It had been tagged for deletion by User:Necromancing, but he never bothered to write the nomination. As the creator of the article, I had personal investment, and anyway I think Stacy Burke is a notable bondage model. — JIP | Talk 10:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I think you're both right. I'd like to update the text on the instructions to follow DESiegel's suggestion if there are no objections. I want to be bold but not crazy for my first edit of a policy page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Go for it! android79 21:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Just checked in this, hope it's ok! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
No, it's NOT. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn't mean that it is. Alphax τεχ 14:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Subpage moves

Although this is not a complete list, it is however a complete list as it can get from December 25, 2004. Please check over Uncle G's bot work and move any pages that have not been moved or have been missed. Several of these pages are redirects to Talk pages, and it would be nice if someone can rollback those changes and place the discussion back under the subpage. -- AllyUnion (talk) (not logged in, using anon ip from work) 20:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh... that reminds me... there is still a bunch of stuff that needs to be deleted from the MediaWiki: namespace days. It's all linked at the bottom. Tackle a link a day! --AllyUnion (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki: to Template: to Votes for deletion to Articles for deletion Cleanup:

AFD to VFD Cleanup:

See Special:Contributions/Uncle G's major work 'bot. Note that the above lists include VFD discussions for articles in the user and project namespaces. These should not be moved to AFD, but should be (and have already been) moved to MD.

Deletion review

A proposal to expand the scope of VfU is being considered at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU. That proposal has received support from those who commented. The idea is to extend the scope of VfU to include the examination of disputed non-delete outcomes and provide a community-based forum for review of all kinds of deletion debate outcomes.

There is now a further proposal to clarify how the new system will work. Please comment on both aspect at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal, thanks. -Splashtalk 01:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Am I closing AfDs too soon?

Normally when I pick a day whose AfDs to close, most of the discussions on the page have already been closed. This morning, though, I picked September 21, and found that only very few had been closed, and all of those were either speedy deletes or keeps. I closed a few debates starting from the start. Most were deletes, but the debate on the Iraq war thingy was clearly a keep. Then I hit the Jordan Capri debate and thought it was time to slow down, as it is still ongoing. Am I closing AfDs too soon? — JIP | Talk 09:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is entirely within all policy to close debates which have been moved to the old section. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old page says "You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple Suggestion

I've not been that long at wikipedia, but I have nominated quite a few pages for removal. I normally list at a time when they'll be near the top of the daily AFDs to maximise visibility. Wouldn't it be fairer to have new AFDs listed at the top instead of bottom? The ones that I've listed at the beginning of the day usually generate more debate and voting. - Hahnchen

Backlog

The AfD page seems to be getting a lot of backlog. There are still some AfDs left from September 18 that haven't been closed. Is anyone closing them? I might close a couple if I can find the time. — JIP | Talk 05:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Admins who discount votes with no comment/reason

I think it's silly. There's always a default comment. For deletionists, it's "per nom" or just "nn". Inclusionists have "wiki isn't paper", "it's not excluded by WP:NOT" or similar. Anyone who omits a reason is just giving a default reason like one of the preceeding. Sure, you can force me to copy/paste default reasons, but is that really achieving anything? It's just wasting my time and yours. If anything, discounting pure votes introduces a bias towards deletionism, since deletionists require only two letters while inclusionists need a bit more effort. ··gracefool |☺ 08:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Era Flair

I ran into this page through Special:Random, and there seems to be no notice, and an unclosed nomination. What should I do, just relist it? Titoxd 05:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

How do I go about adding a article for deletion?

There is no clear outlines of exactly how I do this... -Josquius

It's a three-step process.
  1. Write ((subst:afd)) at the top of the article and include "AfD" as the edit summary.
  2. Click on the resulting redlink, write a three-level header linking to the article name (===[[Article name]]===) and your reasoning, sign the page, and save your changes.
  3. Edit the current day's AfD log to include ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article name)). — JIP | Talk 17:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Steps 2 and 3 can also use the templates ((afd2)) and ((afd3)), as explained here.—Wahoofive (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Return of the AFD List

It's BACK!!! User:AllyUnion/AFD List... Updated hourly as before. The only thing I have not done with the page is announce in the comments what it has added. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, this is quite helpful. Jkelly 05:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

This page desperately needs archiving (209K!), all the movement discussion is finished with now AFAICT. The problem is I'm not sure where to put it, since the previous archives are at Votes for deletion. the wub "?!" 20:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

More