Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 14

message: Here User:Mackerm removed the VfD entry for a discussion that was not concluded. However, he was the one who originally nominated it. Should a page be removed by the auther when things don't go their way, or should the debate be allowed to conclude? --Ben Brockert 23:33, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
*Legally, that's withdrawing your case, a fair legal move. I think that the people who nominate articles for deletion should be allowed to retract their complaints should they feel so inclined- but only them (and admins, of course). If anyone else has an issue with a given article, he or she can renominate it for deletion. Sound fair? -Litefantastic 00:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect removal from VfD?

message: Why is there so much blank space between
:VfD Footer section
and
:To list a page for deletion:
RickK 22:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VfDFooter

message: There was some vandalism involving page moves earlier. They are slow for very busy pages, so it is intended to temporarily protect this page and Village Pump and move them to an archive page to protect against that slow operation happening at a busy time of the day. The protection will last no longer than it takes to complete the move. Please object before the clock reaches :50 after the hour if you do not want this anti-vandalism step to be taken. Jamesday 04:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-vandalism page archive 

message: Why oh why did we go back to the 125k fiasco? - Hephaestos|§ 06:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. Indeed. Please, please, please bring back the MediaWiki VfD. It's a pain this way. -- Cymydog Naakka 12:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

text: There are undoubtedly still flaws with the MW system, but they pale in comparison to this mess. - Hephaestos|§ 15:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the flaws in the MW system are not present in the template system (e.g. spaces and _s should now be treated equivalently where appropriate), which is the alternative to the current "all-in-one system". Another thing not mentioned is that it was useful to have individual delete debates on your watchlist. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't really care either way, so let's just try it all-in-one for a while with the new software and see how it works. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I tried setting this up on...test? or was it meta? Oh well, doesn't matter. It didn't work entirely properly. The code may have changed since then to allow it, so it may be worth a second look. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, aside from them being moved into the Template: namespace before too long... but that's a technicality. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I've also done quite a lot of clean up under both systems, and think the level of effort is about the same under both. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The same thought has occurred to me.  It would seem to make sense that any discussion use a more typical discussion board design, like that of phpBB.  "Discussion as document" doesn't feel right. -- Stevietheman 03:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Coming in on this late, but I've become rather fond of the "discussion as document" model, and I know that if Vfd was moved out of wiki, I would never ever participate in it.  (Not that I do much there now, but at least sometimes I do.) --ssd 01:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki 

message: Why is this?  Before, one could easily check up on clueless newbies, by looking at the Mediawiki history page, or the vfd history page since it was edited a lot less.  but its a lot more difficult now. Has this got sthg to do w/ the new servers? Dunc Harris | Talk 12:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that a large section of the page (which I just deleted) was duplicated. --ssd 05:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has boilerplate been removed? 

message: I've noticed a disturbing trend of basing the validity or significance of article subjects on the number of "hits" the term receives in Google search results. I'm not really asking for anything to change specifically, but I'd like to caution people against using that as the only means of deciding whether to delete an article or not. --Jeff 03:11, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
*I like to think that VfD voters read the articles that they're voting to delete or keep, because that's probably the most reliable way to get a feel for something. Google should be a tool, not the entire box. I don't think it's been a problem yet, but I'm glad Jeff brought it up. Lord Bob 03:20, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
**I do read the article in question. I just use Google to check on how notable the article really is. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overreliance on Google results 

message: This is the proposed guide I mentioned earlier. Please do edit it and discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:Your first article. The intent is that a link to this article will replace the current link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the new article text. That is,
:Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more guidance. Articles in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.
will become
:Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See Wikipedia:Your first article for more guidance. Articles in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.
The goal of the article is to deflect newcomers from innocently creating the commonest kinds of articles that end up on VfD. I will only link to it if there is consensus that it is actually for that specific purpose than Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Dpbsmith 14:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Your first article]]

message: I've tried the  and Cyrius tried .  We have no trouble showing the discussion, but can't make the "click here to add to the discussion" link work.  Both systems work fine for the first one or two entries on the page, but begin to fail after.  There appears to be a limit to how many times you can refer to the same template (or maybe template parameter?) on one page.
I've now tried a completely different process using Germany Must Parish as an example.  It seems to work.  The downside is that you go to the page in reader mode - you have to make a second click to edit the page.  Any thoughts or builds? Rossami 22:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a limit (off the top of my head I think it's five) to the number of times one can refer to the same template on the same page.  Some folks from fr.wikipedia were complaining on the tech mailing list about this a few days ago, and I think Tim explained that it's a safety measure, to limit the denial of service possibilities to which unrestricted template instanciation could be put. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 01:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The only drawback is that special characters like an apostrophe have to be replaced with the correct hexadecimal equivalent. Johnleemk | Talk 06:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm...another is that this seriously screws up the ToC. =( Johnleemk | Talk 06:17, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Returning to one page per discussion

message: Even on my DSL, it takes like 30 seconds to load the whole Vfd Page...time for a cleanup? Ilyanep 00:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you suggest we do about it? -- Cyrius|✎ 04:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Now we've split it into vfd (up to 5 days) and vfd old (over 5 days). We should split it further. Wikipedia has grown so much that it's no longer worth trying to fit it into one page. Bring the discussion elsewhere will just force people to click too many times. --Jiang 04:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: After a lot of conversion to Template style and clean up of duplicates, I've got this page down from well over 300 k to right at 100 k. After the roll-off of the 9 June entries (and a few more conversions), it is again below 70k (at least for a few minutes). It will still take some time to call each of the templates, but this should be faster.  Can you test it? Rossami 01:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: On that point, I disagree with you.  Yes, there is a lot of scrolling but that is a necessary price for being able to keep track of all discussions (which I consider an essential requirement for me to effectively participate). With the Template approach, at least you only have to load it once (and scroll through it once) because you can add your comments to the discussion using "Open in New Window". Rossami 14:50, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vfd too long 

message: Why are mdashes not reconciling on this page?  RickK
*What do you mean "not reconciling"? Rossami
**Insead of seeing the dashes, I'm seeing "mdash&".  RickK 04:27, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
***Look OK to me. — Chameleon 11:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mdashes

message: I think the article is too long now. 
I'm thinking about drastically shortening the section on "local interest" articles by removing the examples and rewriting the paragraph as follows.
*Local-interest articles. These are articles about places like schools, or streets that are of interest to a relatively small number of people such as alumni or people who live nearby. Try to show how the place is special, and different from tens of thousands of similar places. Consider waiting until you have something significant to say about the place before starting an article about it. 
Thoughts? Dpbsmith 23:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change in [[Wikipedia:Your first article]]

message: I have just noticed Talk:Emma Watson which has been created by an anonymous "boy from philippines" (according to the edit summary) and consists of a message of encouragement to Emma, who is drastically unlikely ever to see it :-) This is the article in full (transcluded using subst BTW—see my suggestion above):
----dear emma 
     
if i have something i can say is you are a great actress be pround to your self do not for get god in any you  coz he help you time of crisis just take care always bye
----
I was wondering what the policy is in this case: do we simply blank the Talk page, or do we delete it properly so it turns up as a red link again? --Phil | Talk 08:22, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
:Why not just leave it as is? It seems harmless enough. If he had written something truly offensive, such as "Emma Watson is a (so-and-so)", I'd be in favor of reverting in such a way that it does not appear in histories (which would in effect be deleting back to a red link, no?) --Woggly 08:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we delete Talk pages without deleting the article? 

message: We seem to have got VfD doubled somehow - anyone any good at sorting this out? Secretlondon 19:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD * 2

message: VFD is appearing locked to me.  Is an admin doing a major overhaul or something?  If so, someone should put a notice on the top of the page. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:43, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
I have contacted Meelar. He says there was some sort of error in which parts of the page were duplicated, and the page should be fixed relatively soon. Marcus2 21:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  locked