Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old/Archive 1

message: Hey fellow VFD/Oldsters,
I don't know if there is a place to discuss these things, but what do you think about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mi Último Adiós? A lot of the votes are for Transwiki to WikiSource, but during the VfD, it seems people have added other material so the article now is about the poem, but also includes the poem itself. Is it possible to Keep the article but move the poem to WikiSource? Or perhaps you have other suggestions (or will solve this VfD for me). Thanks, --Deathphoenix 19:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a judgment call for the deciding admin and is exactly why they are supposed to exercise discretion and, at times, to ignore the result that would come of strict vote-counting.  Your proposed solution is entirely acceptable and is the reason that the closers are supposed to evaluate the comments and their order in context of the changes to the article during and since the discussion period.  If you think it might be controversial, though, just skip that one for now.  I hope to have some time this weekend to help work off the backlog.  Rossami (talk) 19:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your thoughts, Rossami. I think what I'll do is spawn off a subarticle, Mi Último Adiós/Poem, and submit that for a Transwiki. --Deathphoenix 00:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions of specific VfDs? 

message: Korath just showed me how to suppress the display of discussions which have already been closed (that is, those which have the blue box behind them).
# If you are still using the monobook style (the default), edit your monobook.css page.
#* If you are using the classic style, edit standard.css instead.
# Type .vfd { display:none; } into the page and save it.
Unintended consequences:
* This might also suppress the VfD header on articles which have been nominated for deletion (if the nomination box also uses "class=vfd").  It will still be visible in edit-mode but will not show in the regular view. (This has not been a problem in any of the recent versions of VfD/AFD tag.)
* This will suppress the entire discussion even when you want to find it.  For example, 
** when the article is renominated and you want to evaluate what was said in the prior discussion
** when the article is kept and you want to follow through the link on the Talk page
** when searching for the old nomination to see if a recreated article is eligible for speedy
** if/when someone inappropriately marks a discussion as "closed" while it's still on the main VfD page.
* A few discussions which were closed over a week ago will not be suppressed because we were using "id=vfd" instead of "class=vfd" in the closing header. (Again, this has not been a problem recently.)
::Rossami (talk) 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated.  By the way, you can temporarily undo this option simply switching to another skin in your preferences.  Then refresh the page with the deletion discussion and you will see the full discussion including the headers.  Rossami (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Another option, which I suggested below, and which requires no work from users, would be to have a bot perodically move closed discussions to the bottom of the page. So far I did not get any feedback on this, whether positive or negative, so I would wonder what people think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not bot-move to a separate page, keeping subpage-link and result? See my remarks on this issue on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Subsetting_AfD. Rd232 talk 12:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressing closed discussions 

message: There are two categories of unresolved vfd discussions: those that no admin has got around to, and those that no admin has managed to decide one way or the other.  The second category keeps us from deleting date pages from this page, and wastes time while admins go through some long pages to search for the unresolved ones, and each of us decide we can't resolve them, for whatever reason.  Could we maybe list that category on a separate page?   That is, if a few admins go through a day's vfd, and all of them decide not to deal with a particular discussion, we can put it on that page, and when a particularly bold/thick-skinned/drunk admin comes by, maybe they can tackle one or two of the "complex discussion" sets.  I did one (Islamic fascism) and I'm already getting flak for it, not willing to do more for another day or two.  I don't have a good name for my proposed subpage.  moink 11:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New subpage proposal: "Complex discussions"

message: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Libertarian capitalism
Is there a reason why the above is still in the Ongoing discussions section? I was tempted to just close the discussion and remove it from the page because the discussion has become stale, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something that happened long before I started working here. --Deathphoenix 21:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing discussions: Libertarian capitalism 

message: Mathbot is wrong sometimes.  Do we know why?  It kept telling me there was one open September 11th debate, and pointed me to a closed debate.  I refreshed the page cache, ran it again a couple of times, and then it told me there were two open discussions, and pointed me to two closed ones!  This is still better than having to do it manually, but if we could figure out what's confusing the poor mathbot it would make our lives a little easier.  moink 11:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what am I supposed to do when this happens?  I just went through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 11 carefully and verified that all debates are closed.  I can delete the link to that day's subpage, but will Mathbot just add it back later?  I don't want other closers to have to go through the page like I did; it took some time that could be used closing more debates.   moink 11:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It hasn't happened yet so I'm pretty sure mathbot won't readd listings after they've been removed it. I think it only works with the listings that are currently on the page and I assume that the miscounts and stuff are due to cache issues. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 16:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, mathbot will not add add back links removed from this page, it works only with existing links. I would like to know myself why the bot still shows some discussions to be open when they are closed. If it happens in the future again, I will try to debug it. (It could be some incorrect syntax in that debate which confuses it, or indeed  server cache issues.) Thank you for pointing this out. Oleg Alexandrov 16:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Oleg!  Mathbot is a great help.  I'll mention it here again if I see it again, with specific pointers to the debates.  moink 19:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The reason may be that, instead of using  ... , the closer used  ...  – ABCD✉ 03:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ABCD, you are very right. My bot needs the text "boiler plate afd..." to declare a discussion closed. This one shows up with {subst:at} but not with simply {at}. I can patch up my bot to look at {at} too, but these days I don't have a reliable internet connection, so I don't know when I will get to it. In the meantime, one  should use {subst:at} instead of {at}, which is the best practice anyway. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathbot inaccuracies? 

message: I readded it and frankly, I think it needs to be permanent. The problem (as we saw) is that when you remove it, less people see the link so then there is less of a chance of it being done. I think the tag has been off for 2 weeks and we're back to having 6 days listed. We had 1 listed when it was removed. Let's just keep it on here, I say. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The backlog tag