Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 2

message: On 24th August, Someone else reformatted VfD with the aim of reducing the 93kb page. Comments and suggested improvements made before7 September are summarized below. Please see the archive for the original text.
===Comments===
*Kaijan said that the new format looked alright, though would take some time to get used to, concluding that the method looked to be a sound one. 
*Dante Alighieri, whilst not in love with the new format, recognised that it solves the length problem.
*Anon said VfD was little more than garbage, which Kaijan felt was overly harsh and expressed the opinion that the new system was more functional. 
*Angela, whilst agreeing that something had to be done, wondered about the practicalities of having to visit 10 different VfD pages. Kaijan counteracted this by asking "who wants to scroll through the whole page just to find a certain comment?" 
*Tarquin thought it was dreadful.
*Anon, misunderstanding that Someone else was still in the process of adjusting VfD, accused him of having botched the job. Someone else stated he would have done this quicker ad it not been for the anon's "help".
*Dante Alighieri  highlighted the problem with not being able to add it to his watchlist and said people no longer discuss things older than a day. He felt that something needed to be done but hat this was not it. He later said he had stopped participating on the VfD page because of the new format
*Daniel Quinlan felt the new VfD format stank and that it made commenting and monitoring basically impossible. 
* Jake, who had originally thought this might turn out well, later felt he was wrong and that the format was not working. 
*Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick said his participation has dropped because of the way he felt about the current system. 
*mav said he really hated the new system and thought that having a 70 KB page was better. 
===Suggestions===
*Change it if you don't like it. (Camembert)
*Individual dates should be subpages. (Jiang)
*Split off by type (suspected copyright", "illegible junk" etc) (Tarquin) (support by Martin, SEWilco and Camembert) (rejection of a split of by junk by bdesham)
*SEWilco suggested that doing the process bit by bit may have been less controversial. 
*Move "/date" pages back when they're very small (eg, only one page listed). (Martin)
*Use an HTML form to add to Vfd (SEWilco). 
*Archive after 2 days, not 1 (Dante Alighieri)
*Pages should be listed on the main VfD page for at least three days (Daniel Quinlan)
*VFD-by-category or pages get listed on VFD, but absolutely all discussion is on talk pages. (Jake)
*Stop listing things that don't need deletion. Fix stubs. (Jake) (rejected by RickK) (supported by Martin) (sort of supported by Angela)
*List the page and if anyone objects, the page is delisted, and discussion moved to the talk page. Come back if the solution is deletion. (Martin) (supported by Tarquin and Cimon Avaro) (suggestion repeated below)
*Let administrators delete nonsense without listing it –handle objections on VfU. Desysop those who abuse this. (Wik) (Tarquin said we already do, Wik said he meant stuff like the Kkawohl pages and Martin pointed out the difficulties surrounding undeletion and desysoping).
*Be more flexible on what counts as junk (Angela) (Martin pointed out how this clutters up VfD, Tarquin and Wik suggested extending the definition of junk)
*Delete copyvios immediately to adhere to OCILLA provisions - see wikipedia talk:votes for deletion/copyvio
*Non-admins should be enabled to view deleted material. (Wik) (rejected by Eloquence to prevent trolls abusing the system and copyvio issues)
*There should be a system to check how many of your deletions get undeleted. (Wik)
*Have a fastrack process. (Mintguy) (support from Smith03)
*Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal) (Cimon Avaro)
* Keep things as they are on one page. We have workarounds for the few with 32kb issues. (Pete)
* Articles that are proposed for merging/redirecting instead of deleting can be moved to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention if the work is to ardous to find someone to do it now. VfD should not be a poster-board for ' Please fix this article ' (One current example : Ventricles of the heart) (Pete) 
* Delist pages from VfD if anyone objects to deletion - they can be listed again when there's consensus (possibly vote-derived) that deletion is the correct approach. Martin
**I wasn't removing this suggestion when I summarised, I was just unduplicating it. I don't think this is a good idea. One objection is not enough to prevent deletion. 80% would be better. Should the original author be allowed to object? Angela 23:18, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of this archive

message: *Change it if you don't like it. (Camembert)
*Individual dates should be subpages. (Jiang)
*Split off by type (suspected copyright", "illegible junk" etc) (Tarquin) (support by Martin, SEWilco and Camembert) (rejection of a split of by junk by bdesham)
*SEWilco suggested that doing the process bit by bit may have been less controversial. 
*Move "/date" pages back when they're very small (eg, only one page listed). (Martin)
*Use an HTML form to add to Vfd (SEWilco). 
*Archive after 2 days, not 1 (Dante Alighieri)
*Pages should be listed on the main VfD page for at least three days (Daniel Quinlan)
*VFD-by-category or pages get listed on VFD, but absolutely all discussion is on talk pages. (Jake)
*Stop listing things that don't need deletion. Fix stubs. (Jake) (rejected by RickK) (supported by Martin) (sort of supported by Angela)
*List the page and if anyone objects, the page is delisted, and discussion moved to the talk page. Come back if the solution is deletion. (Martin) (supported by Tarquin and Cimon Avaro) (suggestion repeated below)
*Let administrators delete nonsense without listing it –handle objections on VfU. Desysop those who abuse this. (Wik) (Tarquin said we already do, Wik said he meant stuff like the Kkawohl pages and Martin pointed out the difficulties surrounding undeletion and desysoping).
*Be more flexible on what counts as junk (Angela) (Martin pointed out how this clutters up VfD, Tarquin and Wik suggested extending the definition of junk)
*Delete copyvios immediately to adhere to OCILLA provisions - see wikipedia talk:votes for deletion/copyvio
*Non-admins should be enabled to view deleted material. (Wik) (rejected by Eloquence to prevent trolls abusing the system and copyvio issues)
*There should be a system to check how many of your deletions get undeleted. (Wik)
*Have a fastrack process. (Mintguy) (support from Smith03)
*Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal) (Cimon Avaro)
* Keep things as they are on one page. We have workarounds for the few with 32kb issues. (Pete)
* Articles that are proposed for merging/redirecting instead of deleting can be moved to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention if the work is to ardous to find someone to do it now. VfD should not be a poster-board for ' Please fix this article ' (One current example : Ventricles of the heart) (Pete) 
* Delist pages from VfD if anyone objects to deletion - they can be listed again when there's consensus (possibly vote-derived) that deletion is the correct approach. Martin
**I wasn't removing this suggestion when I summarised, I was just unduplicating it. I don't think this is a good idea. One objection is not enough to prevent deletion. 80% would be better. Should the original author be allowed to object? Angela 23:18, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Comments moved from VfD page'
*Wikipedia:Votes for deletion - as this page is now little more than garbage, it should be deleted.
**I think that's a bit harsh. I think this new system set up by User:Someone else is much more functional than before. Each day now has its own discussion page (which could be created the day after a new day has started), while the main page has the links to the pages in question. It seems quite simple. -- Kaijan 09:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Trial Format: Comments from VfD

message: Noting Camembert's suggestion above re unilateral arses, I created such a page. Martin 17:08, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio page 

message: OK, here's one. With the old style, I could put the Vfd page on my watchlist and see whenever someone made an addition. The way it stands now, I have to watchlist every "day" to make sure that I can catch new discussions. In addition, I think the format has a chilling effect on discussion of anything older than one day.
I'm not saying it's unredeemably terrible, and something needs to be done about the length of the Vfd page, but I don't think that this is it. --Dante Alighieri 22:03, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no one seems to be watching this page... but I'll make another request as well,. I'd like to ask people to hold off archiving the page for two days, instead of one. I don't think that that should push the page to 96k, and it would be easier to deal with the page, at least for me. --Dante Alighieri 20:21, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: A deletion moratorium is nonsense, and cannot be supported.  This would only give a green light to the addition of totally nonsense articles.  RickK 04:19, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the new format 

message: Also posted on Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion/copyvio
It states that VfD for copyright violations are seven days. Is this in complete conformity with the DMCA? The section also known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which is made a part of the US Copyright law in sec. 512 of Title 17 United States Code, states if someone who is a copyright owner follows the rules of that section, the ISP should remove the material for which copyright is claimed "expediously" so as not to incur liability i.e. not wait seven or ten days, but take it off ASAP). Of course this requires notice to the Wikipedia:designated agent which is not what is happening in the VfD pages, but since we are trying to make sure there is no infringement shouldn't that be mentioned on the Vfd pages and in the VfD policy pages? If someone who claims copyright finds out that we are infringing shouldn't we make sure that Wikipedia is in compliance so we do not occur any legal liability to Bomis, or Wikimedia? Just a thought. Alex756 22:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the OCILLA provisions of sec. 512 of US Copyright law? 

message: When a day only contains one or two articles listed for deletion, I think it makes sense to move it back here. VfD is around 10-15K these days, so we've got space to spare, and people have frequently observed that seperate page => nobody comments. Martin 21:10, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't even check the articles themselves, to see if I would care about their deletion anymore. Call me apathetic, but that is how I feel about the current system. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 04:12, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. I really hate the new system and frankly think that having a 70 KB page was better. --mav 04:41, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stopped participating on the VfD page because of the new format. :( --Dante Alighieri 04:24, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving days back when near empty? 

message: Some people seem to always blank pages that they list on VfD.  Why?  Keeping the content makes it easier to see whether it should stay.  (and yes, of course one can read it in the page history, but what's the point?) --Morven 03:28, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see someone doing this, just unblank it, and add the deletion notice. Martin 09:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but there are exceptions. I think blanking should occur where the content is potentially copyvio or abusive. Angela 18:26, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the case of the copyright infringements, defamation or otherwise abusive content immediate blanking puts the pages in the page history.  While it is still accessible at least it is out of the way of any external page links to that page.  The page history archives are not being published in the same way as the current version of a page. It is also important to note that defamation, unlike copyright law, depends on the place where the page is viewed; it is not based on the law of the place it is stored, thus any defamatory statement that is not immediately removed may cause problems not only for those who have linked to it but the Wikipedia community in general.  Some countries have been imposing a higher standard of care to prevent defamation on the administrators of online information depositories; the more we can do to minimize exposure in this area, the better. Alex756 19:46, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why blank pages listed on VfD?