Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 13

message: There's two copies of the links to other langauges at the top of the VfD page.  Someone w/ a faster connection than myself should track down where in the page the two are and delete one.  --zandperl 15:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was two copies of the whole page! not just the language links. I think I fixed it but everyone please check that I didn't accidentally delete anything I shouldn't have. theresa knott 15:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Language links

message: I don't understand what's going on. I tried skimming the preceding dicussions.  I haven't been to this page in a few days and now when I clicked a link to "add my comments to this discussion" for  Ryan's Password Protection System I apparently updated an entirely different page--looks like that's what it's supposed to do, because I think everyone else's edits are there,too, but now mine don't show up on this main page. I don't understand how the comments get there from the apparently duplicate subsidiary page.  There are no instructions or explanations at the top of VFD. Is it broken and was supposed to happen automatically?  If there's some magic to all of this, I don't like it. Elf | Talk 01:08, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what happened. In an effort to cut down on edit conflicts, Pete began an experiment in which the discussion of particular listings go on a Mediawiki page whose text is made visible on VfD via the  syntax. All listings remain visible on VfD, but no edit conflicts occur when people update different listings. This workaround has been met with mixed reviews. For more info, start reading at the heading "Maintainability experiment". -- Cyan 03:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: you need to hit the refresh button on your browser to see your updated comment on VfD theresa knott 09:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Splitting it in two will still make it much too big. It was 150kb before the new system was tried. Splitting into seven would make the individual pages about 20kb, which would be acceptable, but it's only a short term solution. In a few months, those seven pages will be regularly beyond 32kb as well. Angela. 16:35, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
===Modest proposal===
I have another modest proposal.  This page is way too huge and is only going to get larger.  I don't just mean the length of the Wikitext, which it seems efforts are being made to keep below 32kb, but also in terms of it being an unwieldy length on people's browsers and a slow download.  So, I was thinking, how about we have a format similar to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, with a one-line description of the issue involved in deciding on deletion, and a link to a Talk page, e.g.,
* Jimbo Wales - vanity page, non-famous - discuss at Talk:Jimbo Wales/Delete.
Or, we could also just use the normal Talk page instead of a special one; that would mean we could just have
* Jimbo Wales - vanity page, non-famous
(with wikitext ) and then we wouldn't need both links since the user could find the page with "View article" (or we could put a linkback on /Delete; many possibilities).  Then VfD would just be a bulleted list of links and descriptions, which I expect will prove much more scalable. -- VV 02:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This is very confusing

message: I have another modest proposal.  This page is way too huge and is only going to get larger.  I don't just mean the length of the Wikitext, which it seems efforts are being made to keep below 32kb, but also in terms of it being an unwieldy length on people's browsers and a slow download.  So, I was thinking, how about we have a format similar to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, with a one-line description of the issue involved in deciding on deletion, and a link to a Talk page, e.g.,
* Jimbo Wales - vanity page, non-famous - discuss at Talk:Jimbo Wales/Delete.
Or, we could also just use the normal Talk page instead of a special one; that would mean we could just have
* Jimbo Wales - vanity page, non-famous
(with wikitext ) and then we wouldn't need both links since the user could find the page with "View article" (or we could put a linkback on /Delete; many possibilities).  Then VfD would just be a bulleted list of links and descriptions, which I expect will prove much more scalable. -- VV 02:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Modest proposal

message: I propose:
#If the article is deleted, keep the mediawiki page and link it to Wikipedia:Archived delete debates so it is not orphaned.
#If the article is kept, move the VfD discussion to the talk page and delete the mediawiki page. 
Any objections/suggested improvements? Angela. 18:17, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
*Good idea.  Why not add all votes to Wikipedia:Archived delete debates instead of kept ones going to talk page?  That way the talk page isn't cluttered up or confused as a current active vote (as some in the talk page are). - Tεxτurε 18:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do with the mediawiki pages after VfD

message: I know VfD is always huge, but when, oh when, is someone going to split off the IamSexy debate (vote: Delete)? Niteowlneils 19:15, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move IamSexy debate

message: Apologies if this has been proposed before (I haven't followed the discussion around here), but couldn't every article whose deletion is being voted on get its own temporary vfd page (deleted after the vote)? Votes for deletion would then simply become a list of links. -- Dissident 23:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Proposal?

message: Don't laugh...  
Day-pages.  
I've tried to be thorough with this, and it got a bit wordy, so I've put it onto a sub-page /Day-page proposal.  I hope that doesn't offend anyone's sensibilities.  It uses some stuff from test, so it's more of a replacement for the current system when it becomes redundant because of edit merging.
Obviously, I wasn't around the last time day-pages were tried, so any similarities are purely coincidental, and should probably be highlighted by someone who was there. Thanks. - Lee (talk) 18:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: (Yet another) Proposal

message: #Yes, because, the experiment never addressed the fact that the page isn't just too large for editing, but for VIEWING and going with the date based proposal has its own problems, will break the Vfd discussions up anyway and will only postpone the problem. You know it makes sense. -- Dissident 12:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Peharps in the future, but for now the current system is still quite functional. - SimonP 14:31, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
#:Not for me, it isn't. -- Dissident 14:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I want to propose a simle fix that will, I believe improve VfD page load times. Part of the reason VfD is slow is that the deletion process is way behind the voting process; i.e. we still have lots of of pages whose time of VfD is up, but have not been deleted. This process is made worse by the fact that the time to load the VfD page is long enough to make deleting pages and removing them from VfD quite time consuming. I propose simply that we make a new sub-page to Votes for Deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Time expired?) and copy all the contents of the VfD page to it for discussions which have expired. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple fix for improving VfD performance

message: :From the village pump
We could use a few more sysops on vfd. Lately we have been up to 5 days backlogged; articles should really only be listed on vfd for 5 days, but still we got entries as old as March 29 listed at the moment. I have done a little of the delisting and deleting myself, but I don't have that much spare time at the moment. Sysops please help bring vfd back on track. ✏ Sverdrup 01:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help, but what's the procedure on the MediaWiki messages? What do we do with them? Meelar 02:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: OK, then, I'll start when I get back in a few hours. Meelar 13:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD could need your help

message: # For contentious topics (those not immediately trashable) require they go to Cleanup first.
# Condense discussion to limited terms (as with Cleanup) only the issue on VFD is wether to trash or send to Cleanup for treatment.
# Use a dump page, (as described above) for older links, which admins can deal with at the butt end.  (That is all thank you -a Mere Cat|meow]] 01:46, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better proposal (terseness) 

message: Does anyone remember a page or series of pages solely displaying artwork of Che Guevara, or some other revolutionary leader from the western hemisphere? I believe they were deleted under the VfD, were they not? -- user:zanimum
*Funny thing is, there isn't. There is, however, a page of pop-culture images- is that what you refer to? -Litefantastic 00:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Che gallery?

message: Everyone is complaining about the format and performance of VfD.  I have become convinced that the real problem is not format or mechanics - it is our underlying assumption that voting is the best way to make these decisions. We end up with dozens of "I agree" votes that make the page unmanageably large. Eloquence and others have proposed a different approach to VfD that is based on logical arguments that can be expanded or disputed but which do not have to be signed.  See Wikipedia:Deletion requests for details. Most of the VfD threads would boil down to just a few lines. Rossami 13:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another proposal

message: OK, the bug where somebody clicks on one section to edit and another one pops up has infected the VfD page.  Can somebody figure out if there's a section header commented out somewhere?  RickK 23:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section editing bug

message: I just realised that the whole of this page had been struck by that odd "entire contents repeated" issue (I'm not sure whether there's a bug involved, but it would certainly be nice to have a feature to avoid it!). The edit in question is from about 3 days ago, so I'm now going through re-adding comments from the half of the page I've just cleared away. So don't worry if they haven't reappeared yet. - IMSoP 17:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'm pretty sure that's all tidied up now - what a pain! All the comments that were in one half of the page and not the other should show up on this sandbox diff, and all those are now in the current version. But if you think something's still vanished, feel free to hunt it down yourself... IMSoP 17:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: On the entry Antonia Ruster it's only including the first comment, and I can't figure out why. --Brockert 19:20, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Also Give No Salutation (GNS) has comments that are not showing up. What's going on?
*It could have been either of two things.
*#The MediaWiki links don't seem to work with punctuation well. Underscores are okay but blank spaces and parentheses are not. If you have punctuation in lines 2 or 3, users can still comment but they do not show up.  That does not seem to have been the case here because the links are set up properly now.
*# The other problem I've found frustrates me but I'm pretty sure that it's a setup problem on my end.  After making an edit in MediaWiki, I often find that my browser does not refresh the content even though I've hit the refresh button. Five minutes to an hour later, the content shows. Rossami
:Just for your information, the second may be workable around by using shift-refresh, or control-refresh, which tells your browser "No, really, I want to refresh this page, even if you don't think it's changed." See Wikipedia:Clear your cache. - IMSoP 22:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments not showing