Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 4

message: Hmm. I was thinking. And what came to mind was a silly idea that entries should be listed on VFD for say 11 days, but discussion should only take place on the three last days. 
Meaning that if you wanted, you could create files like: User:foobarf/delete and User:foobarf/defend and just cut and paste the prepared argument formed therein, once the argument-period opened. AAARGH. I am being too verbose again. I really want to hear other views about this... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:07, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
*Perhaps a nice way of people clumsy with arguments, like me, to prepare. I already feel the antecipation of the opening day... But i  tink 11 days is too much. Perhaps 3 waiting + 3 replying. Muriel Victoria 12:12, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - you persuade Eloquence and that's what we'll do. Please read the archives. Angela 23:08, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  A radical suggestion. 

message: Subpages only serve to limit discussion and cause problematic articles/titles to be reintroduced here again and again.  I wish certain people would stop creating them before a discussion is finished. Daniel Quinlan 05:45, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
*Come back when you get a genie. Martin 20:29, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  The undeletion tech is still fairly temperamental and, according to Tim Starling, not yet ready for large scale use. Nevertheless, many people advocate a meta:deletion management redesign, which would allow anyone to delete a page, and anyone else to restore it. Martin 18:31, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate delete pages

message: Why does the boilerplate need to be listed at the top? We don't list stub notices at the top. We don't list disambiguation notices at the top.
: But we do list accuracy and neutrality disputes at the top, as a visible warning to the reader. I guess it depends whether you think the threat of deletion is a bit like a dispute over the page, or whether you think it's a bit like a chunk of combined metadata/explanation about the page (which is what stub and disambiguation notices are). Onebyone 00:49, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Neutrality disputes should be made aware of before reading the article, so people understand the situation beforehand and know what to expect.  VfD notice should as well, since there is only a five day listing time, and it's best to solicit opinions on the article. Fuzheado 01:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Top isn't really essential IMO. The important thing is an edit of any sort with something about adding VfD so that those watching the article will see it and get notice that something is happening. Anything else is relatively minor. Top is best, IMO, because so many listings are for new pages created by newcomers who won't have watch lists and because anons don't have watch lists - we need to use the top to communicate with them and may even need to write notes to them at the top, just to increase the chance of them seeing our communications. What bothers me more is regularly finding things on VfD for which no VfD notice was applied. Jamesday 14:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the top? 

message: This has got to the most pathetic excuse for a voting script that I have seen on a website in a long time.  Are you guys that desperate for JAVA programmers?--Mr-Natural-Health
: Actually, we once had a dedicated voting script, but it was removed a couple of years back. If you'd like to suggest re-adding it, see wikipedia:bug reports. Better, volunteer to write it yourself: see wikitech-l. Martin 17:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If you will not participate in our democracy, you should not have hopes to change it. --cprompt 01:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  When all you got is a hammer, everything thing looks like a nail! 

message: Is there a way to blank an article so that the history is preserved, but it registers as a nonexistent page for linking purposes?  This seems to be the way to go for many sub-stubs, such as Direct Marketing Association.  The information on that page isn't intrinsically bad and should be available to later contributors.  Granted, it needs careful treatment to avoid POV, but it shouldn't be wiped off the face of the wiki. -Smack 00:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet but see m:Deletion management redesign. Angela. 00:30, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: "Soft" deletion?

message: Just a reminder that long discussions can be moved to /Delete subpages as explained at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates and when a page is redirected, it can be delisted from VfD, and put at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion if it is likely to still need deletion. I just cut the page down from, what is possibly a record, 109kb to a much more manageable, though still not ideal, 62kb. It would be good if, rather than just commenting, people thought about whether their comments would be best elsewhere (ie - subpage or delete page) before making them. TIA. Angela. 03:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I might point out that over a 28 Kbit modem (which is still the standard in MUCH of the world) uploading a 100 Kbyte page takes something like a full minute.  As does fixing it after every single edit conflict.  This is not good for some users (not including myself, I have a 31337 OC-3 out to the net here at school).  -- Pakaran 03:27, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: Why not make each entry for article to be deleted a sub-section so that it shows up on the Table-of-Contents ? Currently the TOC only has the date names which serve maybe less than half the purpose of navigation. Lets have the round bullets only for discussions of the article and "= = =" for article-line. Jay 09:24, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been suggested before, but reformatting VfD has been a contentious issue. If you feel strongly about it, you could take a copy of a recent version of the VfD page and convert it to your suggested format on a personal subpage, so that people can evaluate it without affecting the day-to-day operation of VfD. -- Cyan 13:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been suggested at least three times. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive 3. Angela. 01:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better navigation 

message: Why is there a double <BR> in the  boilerplate?  Seems to add too much space between the notice at the top of the article. Fuzheado 11:52, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double BR 

message: I notice a lot of people who post Votes for Deletion do so without putting a "delete" notice on the page, which is very unfair to the page's author.
Any suggestions how we can police this? Anjouli 02:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely. That is why I asked that the boilerplate be added to the top of VfD....yet, I am absent-minded enough to forget to place the message atop articles I nominate. I always mean to do it, but sometimes I forget. I am a little forgetful. It is part of my charm and part of my trouble! Alas. Kingturtle 02:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I suggest it is "policed" in the same way that any additions to an article are "policed". If you see an article without the notice, add it. You can't expect people to be perfect and always remember to add the notice. A huge number of people look at the articles listed on VfD so surely one of them is going to notice the lack of the message. I don't think it's something you need to start getting overly worried about. A few months ago there was no requirement to add such a notice anyway, so whilst it is an excellent idea to add it, it isn't the end of the world when someone forgets. Angela. 07:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Ditto Angela - just add the notice. If the fact that the submitter did not put the notice on the page annoys you (I know it annoys the hell out of me when I don't see it), just move the listed page to the section corresponding to the date you put the notice on the page. You could also leave a short reminder on the submitter's talk page that adding the notice is considered to be good manners. --mav 09:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent suggestion. Now watch me get flamed the first time I move a block to a different date :) Anjouli 13:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it's an excellent suggestion. IMO it should be standard practice. I've seen it done several times, including by a sysop who was otherwise about to delete the article, and I haven't seen any flame wars result yet. It's a reasonable thing to do and avoids wasting time discussing undeletion later. Andrewa 09:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text:  Alas, adding the VfD notice to articles has been an obsession of mine, simply because I'm a bit too busy right now to be involved with full article writing and it's an easy thing to do. Fuzheado 11:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD not being posted properly. 

message: Has this debate been had before? I just came across a mess with the Lists of Linux User Groups. I made many of them redirects as some of them actually show up on google. What is the problem with making some articles redirects, instead of deleting them? Obviously, not all articles deserve to be made redirects, but if it helps someone find the more general, accurate, etc. topic, then why not? Dori | Talk 16:52, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
: We strongly encourage the creation of redirects rather than listing pages for deletion, whereever appropriate. Thank you, Dori, for helping make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Martin 22:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting vs. Redirecting 

message: I hate this page. It's poorly organized, so it's really hard to find an article whose impending deletion I want to read or comment about. Also, I think too much time is wasted debating the yes/no question of deletion, which could be better spent improving the page or cutting and pasting its contents to another page. Besides, if no one has the guts to turn it into a blank page, it's probably good enough to keep. --Uncle Ed 19:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: I hate this page

message: It would seem only fair to give those votes which were underway during the outage a couple of days of extra grace before their votes are finalised.  Comments? -- Finlay McWalter 20:21, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. I would suggest that the items listed on the 20th and 21st be left for seven days to make up for the two lost days, and the things listed on the 22nd be left for at least six days. Angela. 23:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well.  RickK 01:30, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: And another day for the latest outages? VfD is only 43kb at the moment, so I think it can handle it. Some of them seem to be undisputed anyway, so those could go earlier if VfD does get too large. Angela. 05:06, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't this outage two days? -- Finlay McWalter 11:46, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting Extension