Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 19

message: The 'current votes' has 7 days of votes listed!  I'd clean it up & move stuff to the /old pages myself, if I knew how.  Right now, the page needs some tender lovin' care to clear off the old stuff.  hfool 01:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Figured it out. hfool 02:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current backlog 

message: Appologies if this is posted to the wrong place, but I've been away for a while and things seem to have changed alot around here since my last visits...
Anyway, :Image:Permaculture mandala.png seems to have been deleted, I'd like to put it back as it's my own picture. In the old days I would have simly done this through the recently deleted log, but it seems I can't access this anymore (or if I can I've no longer got any idea how...)
Can anybody advise???? quercus robur 11:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is advice for administrators on how to delete an image at Wikipedia:Administrators'_how-to_guide#Deleting_an_image, but as it says there, I don't think there is a way undelete an image without locating someone with the original copy and re-uploading it. On the other hand I can't find this image in the deletion log, and part of the reason may be that it doesn't seem to have been deleted - at least I can still find it at :Image:Permaculture mandala.png. I did notice a server glitch half an hour ago, that prevented me seeing a different picture I was working on. -- Solipsist 12:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeedy- it seems to be back- must have been a glitch, come to think of it wiki more or less ground to a halt on my PC at the same time which I put down to my system being overloaded by all my kids gams that had been open earlier... quercus robur 13:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to undelete an image but can't remember how to do it... 

message: Does anybody apart from User:JRM actually use the link to the VfDed article in the edit summary? If this is how the majority of people read VfD I'm happy to type a few extra characters, but if this is rarely used it seems like a bit of a waste of effort, the list of actions required for VfDing is quite long enough already. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 14:20, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
:I don't terribly care either way since I usually don't refresh my watchlist every 5 minutes (unless I'm in a state of terminal boredom:) , but yes, in principle having a link to the added article in the edit summary is useful - makes it easier to jump to th elatest discussion instead of having to wait for the whole Vfd page to load -- Ferkelparade π 14:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to reword it to sound more optional, Fvw, if that's a concern. I don't want anyone to feel obligated by something I unilaterally instated. JRM 14:30, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
*Since my method of creating a VfD includes copying the article title, it's easy enough to paste it into the edit summary -- and it's helpful to them of us that do watch our watchlist obsessively. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: Why do I have to click on the December 28 link in order to put a new article under December 29? 172.172.35.229 22:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A possible reason is that in one of the subpages there is a section that is commented out with  markup. It is a problem of wiki softare. I tried to search for the point where the sectioning broke, but gave up. Anyway, after a couple of days the problem will hopefully go away, as the older dates become deleted. Mikkalai 22:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do I have to edit the wrong link?

message: Modem users, celebrate!  You may find a clean VfD page with only one day on it, automatically updated , VfD page here: WP:VFD/Today.  Some script hacking, like determining the size of the page, would be able to do the trick for new VfD discussions. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD Today 

message: Please delete this redundant image as I am replacing it: [Image:Alexander Tilloch Galt.jpg]. Thank you. JillandJack 14:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  from the main page 

message: Recently, a lot of new participants to VfD have been voting "Merge and Delete".  You should know that many of us who close out the discussions are forced to interpret that as a "keep" vote (specifically, "keep as redirect").  
# GFDL requires that we preserve the attribution history of our articles.  If the content is merged, I must preserve the history of the page where it was merged from.  (Now, that can be done by copy-pasting the history into the merged article's Talk page but it's clumsy and takes several more steps.  It's much easier to make the old article into a redirect.)
# According to the Deletion process, I'm supposed to go through "What links here" and update any links before deletion.  That's an error-prone process - very easy to miss one.  Leaving the redirect in place gives me some slack.  If a link doesn't get updated, it at least gets pointed to the right place instead of leaving a redlink behind (which just invites the eventual recreation of the deleted article).
# Redirects don't show on most views or on the mirrors.  Even if it's a biased title, the fact that it points to an NPOV article shows that we don't endorse the POV. About the only way you'll find the redirect is through the search engine - and you're unlikely to search for the biased title unless you also share that bias.
# Redirects are cheap.
If you really want the content preserved and want the original article deleted, you are going to have to make a very convincing argument over and above your "merge and delete" vote.  Rossami (talk) 22:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and Delete 

message: The process documented at the end of WP:VFD is open to misinterpretation and allows for bad entries to be made on the page.
Can this not be automated through a Special Page?
Anyone?
Peter Hitchmough 10:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automating VfD process? 

message: I don't know how many people have seen the following error message:
:Can't delete this article because it contains block-compressed revisions. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the article for deletion and wait for a developer to fix our buggy software.
I've created Template:Pending deletion for articles that should be deleted, but can't. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "contains block-compressed revisions" 

message: Daniel Maycock is still in limbo even though it was proposed for deletion nearly a month ago. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as though that page slipped through the cracks.  I have deleted it. - SimonP 23:35, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Consensus science was nominated for deletion on the 21st.  As you can see on VfD/Old, we are still working through entries which were nominated on the 19th.  We will get to it.  Please be patient.  (Or, even better, read the Deletion process and come help clean them out.)  Rossami (talk) 22:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 18:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprocessed deletions? 

message: I dunno about anyone else, but I find myself paying a lot less attention to WP:VFD these days. Not because I'm not interested in participating in the process -- it's simply that because the change to the by-day format, changes to WP:VFD (new entries, usually) don't show up on my watchlist; and since my watchlist is always the first place I look for "what's going on of interest"...well, you get the point. Wonder how many others have fallen away because of this? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have all the individual day pages on my watchlist, including those which haven't been created yet. So I can go to my watchlist and click on the latest day's worth of VFD, which is always near the top, which saves time loading. (Links to automagically watch the pages here.) sjorford:// 10:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing vfd voices 

message: That is, have all the VFD subpages to be listed on a day to day basis.  See: 
* To further explain, the current system has a direct link to page with the current day, month and year.  This direct link is automatic, and does not require any updating.  All that is required is for someone to click on the direct link to add their subpage vote, , on to the automatically created daily subpage which must be added to the VFD main page like so:  -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1: Keep the new system in place 

message: #Jmabel | Talk 04:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
#Mgm|(talk) 12:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
#Smoddy | ειπετε 17:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: *If the process is changed, could we please get some warning before implementing it?  I'm tired of coming to list VfD things only to find out that the process has changed without warning.  RickK 01:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
**Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
*Seems to cut down on articles nominated on the wrong day, but I'd really like to hear from the good folks doing the bulk of the work on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. —Korath (Talk) 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
** It works slightly faster for me since I no longer have to edit two pages each time to move the link from the /Old page to the Archived deletion debates page.  The new process lets us just leave the discussion thread where it is and move the link for entire day-page to the archive page when all the discussions are closed.  Rossami (talk)
***I find the new system a lot faster, especially when I'm doing a speed-run taking care of  lots of obvious "deletes."  Not having to move the discussions one at a time is wonderful!  Joyous 23:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
* I would also like to draw the attention that there is a page used solely for today's entries only: WP:VFD/Today, this is very useful for modem users who don't want to load the whole VFD page... or broadband users who's patience with the VFD page is lacking. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: That is, have all the VFD subpages to be listed on the main VFD page.  See: 
==== Yes ====
# On main page list days with articles to delete but no discussion on the main page.  It's the pile-up of discussions that make it prohibitively large. Cburnett 21:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 2: Return the old system: VFD subpages on one page 

message: # On main page list days with articles to delete but no discussion on the main page.  It's the pile-up of discussions that make it prohibitively large. Cburnett 21:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: #Mgm|(talk) 12:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
#Carnildo 23:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: * The only disadvantage is load time, and it's hard to really add new pages without a direct link. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: ==== Yes ====
# Mozzerati 19:42, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC) if pos. make a way to see a list of new VFDs.  preferably in the watchlist with more than one at a time 
==== No ====
#
==== Neutral ====
#
==== Comment ====
* What are the problems with the current system? I've had no trouble with it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
** One of them is that you can no longer keep track via watchlist.  Other problems, I am not fully certain.  Anyone else care to elaborate? -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 3: Find a way to fix problems with current "new" system 

message: * What are the problems with the current system? I've had no trouble with it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
** One of them is that you can no longer keep track via watchlist.  Other problems, I am not fully certain.  Anyone else care to elaborate? -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: This section is to discuss possible compromises between the two systems.
* Thoughts: Maybe a bot? -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find a compromise 

message: Thanks to Sjorford, I have discovered how to make an automatic watch link for today's VFD day:
[ Add today's VFD to watchlist]
-- AllyUnion (talk) 04:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchpage Link 

message: A bunch of pages which should be nominated for deletion are now listed at Wikipedia:Auto-categorization/Wikipedia_namespace.  If anyone would care to second these nominations, we could really use a hand or two with the logistics of posting them to VFD.  Some of the "unsorted" pages are probably also candidates for deletion; feel free to help weed out the good from the bad, if you're so inclined.  Thanks!  -- Beland 04:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia namespace cleanup - help needed 

message: I have a list of vfd discussions which is currently being manually updated.  See User:AllyUnion/VFD List.  I will attempt to update it as best I can. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD List of Discussions 

message: Putting the procedure in the footer doesn't seem to make it any easier to find.  Is there a more than historical reason for the placement? RJFJR 04:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
: I think the idea is to draw someone's attention to the nomination process without any VfD votes below it.  Also, traditionally, you add your votes to the end of the page anyway. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the procedure in footer instead of header?

message: Please please please... if you remove a discussion off the page because of size issues, please please please... make a notice as a sub-subpage of the VFD.  My bot assumes that the VFD day sub-subpage only has transincludes.  Including any other text gives it habit of screwing up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD List Bot 

message: DLJessup had a great suggestion, after I had dealt with yet another recreation of U.S. presidential election, 2012—after deletion, recreate the verboten article as a redirect to its VfD discussion page and then protect it.  We should do this as a matter of course after every VfD, and then we'd never have to deal with vandal recreations of properly deleted articles, and it would also be clear to anyone who was unaware of the VfD why the article is no longer there.  Should we put this to a vote to make this an established step in the VfD procedure?  Postdlf 16:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're at it, why don't we discuss whether closed VfD discussions should be protected too?  I can't think of a reason not to.  Postdlf 21:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to permanently prevent recreations of VfD'd articles 

message: Anything that has been already deleted because it meets deletion criteria should be immediately closed.  -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a speedy candidate, and it did meet deletion criteria, and it was deleted already.... there is no sense in continuing the VfD debate.  Therefore, the debate should be immediately closed because it is no longer a VfD candidate.  Use:  speedy delete --~~~~ and  to close a speedy candidate's (which has already been deleted) VFD subpage.  See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and speedy deletions -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletions 

message: Okay, I was reading through 'dead end pages' today. At least half of those pages shouldn't be in here, for a variety of reasons (move to wikipedia, translate, etc). Now these two are easy - click on edit, paste in the //move to wikipedia// tag or something similar, and you're done.
However, many of these pages should be deleted for a variety of reasons (lack of content, lack of credibility, vanity pages, etc). In order to do this, you have to follow the nine steps displayed at the bottom of the vfd page, which takes longer than it took to write those dead end pages to begin with. Can we get a macro for that please?
OTOH, speedy deletions can be added simply by doing //db|reason//. I propose that there be similar simple tags for some of the more common reasons for deletion, e.g. //vanity//. (then again it may be that that already exists :) in which case sorry). This would make cleanup a lot easier.
212.206.63.108 16:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by macro?  If you mean an easier way to archive off in VFD/Old, I'm working on something to that extent. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request: Some kind of deletion macro?

message: We seem to be building up a fair list of recommended inclusion guidelines.  I just saw a new one this evening about web comics.  I know that most are mere proposals so far and they are not universally accepted.  However, I believe that they are a useful attempt to bring some consistency to our decision-making.  The ones I know of are listed below.  Is there a comprehensive list of these recommendations anywhere?  If not, would everyone please add to the list below?  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 04:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion guidelines 

message: I have refereshed repeatedly, but none of the February 18 list is showing up.  I CAN see it when I click on the "Add new VfD section", when it puts me in Edit mode.  RickK 05:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
*I just clicked on "Purge page cache" and that didn't do any good, either.  RickK 06:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
**The bot didn't update the page.  I've just done so. —Korath (Talk) 06:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
***What bot?  RickK 07:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
****For the last couple of weeks, Allyunion's been running a bot to do the date stuff automatically. It's listed in the history. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why am I not able to see the February 18 page?

message: Quite a lot of nominations on VFD seem to argue that this is a duplicate article, and that it should therefore be deleted. Many seem to vote delete with that same reason. Why use such a drastic measure? Why not use the less drastic measures of redirect and/or merge. Often the title is plausible enough to merit at least a redirect. 129.177.61.124 09:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wrestling Champions 2005. I don't care much about wrestling, I just wondered why it was on the nomination list.129.177.61.124 09:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: More examples:
** Nomination: Nahanni, 
** Votes: Cheshire moon, Wan Azizah Ismail Kappa 10:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so eager to ''delete'' duplicates? 

message: From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cleo:
*People voting on VfD should either leave the articles alone until they are deleted; or else clean them up on the subject on which they were originally written. Entirely wrong, and counterproductive to boot.  I refer you to the final sentence of the  notice.  The only restrictions upon what edits one can do to an article on VFD are technical ones that are required in order to maintain the VFD notice on the article. Uncle G 06:32, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
**Uncle G, if someone wrote an article on the Animals, the band, and someone else submitted it to VfD because they thought it was band vanity, do you think it would be OK to come along while the VfD was in progress and people were considering this argument, and change the article to one about animals (as in lions, tigers, and bears).   That seems like a unilateral decision to delete the topic to me, since the VfD isn't over, and not really proper.   This article is no different.   You say the current article is vanity, and I agree with you, but that is what the VfD vote is deciding. --BM 12:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting or cleaning up articles whilst they are being discussed 

message: Nominated Nelli Kim/Temp. Now it's February 19, but I placed it among February 18 nominations. Didn't know how to fix it. Sorry. Nelli Kim/Temp subsection should be placed into the VfD section February 19. Cmapm 00:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry...

message: I click on the link at the top of the page and it takes me to a description that reads like the exact same process we werer doing.  What am I missing?  RickK 21:13, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
:The difference is that nominators are now supposed to say what they want done with an article. This is to assist in "vote counting" and comes with the added bonus of eliminating any ambiguity as to whether and how to consider the nominator's opinion. See the diff or the discussion for more details. - RedWordSmith 21:53, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Also, a new alternative method has been added. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is different about the process?

message: It has come to a conclusion that Deletionists are very closely related to trolls. Many controversial articles have been wrongly deleted (and you know what they are) mainly because of deletionsm. It is therefore that legitmate non-deleitionst Wikipedians boycott VFD and do not feed the deletionsts until the VFD is reformed to stop the abuse. Like trolls, deletionsts waste your time, Deletionsts have too much time on their hands so arguing with them will only cause you pain and the deletionsts will get joy. Not only that, another article gets deleted! If every one spent time working on real articles instead of aruging with deletionsts Wikipedia will double in quality and deletionsts will get bored and go away, while truly deletable articles will naturally be filtered out. Summary, votes for deletion is flawed, as long as votes can be abused by deletionsts, more causities will occur and Wikipedia will be deleted! So, are you going to let Wikipedia get deleted or are the deletionists going to be deleted? Delete the deletionists, Keep the Wikipedia! This is the sole edit by .
*How will "truly deletable articles will naturally be filtered out" if they don't get deleted? Mr. Curious 02:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't feed the deletionists 

message: There are many voters on VfD whose voting is biased towards one area or another but still relatively predictable and mostly rational.  Today I have noticed a case of odd behaviour, JamesBurns, who has voted "delete" with the argument "spurious notability" on the following:
*Carl Meinhof, one of the founders of African lingustics, about whom there is an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica;
*Howard Kester, a significant figure in the history of both the US workers' movement and the civil rights movement in the US south, about whom both articles in historical journals and at least one book has been written; 
*Katamori Matsudaira, an important political figure in mid-19th century Japan with hundreds of Google hits in English and 15,600 hits in Japanese;
*Lloyd L. Gaines, who won a lawsuit concerning the access to education for blacks which is important in the history of the American civil rights movement.
JamesBurns also voted to delete:
*Guo Bingwen, Chinese educator, because he "doesn't belong in the English section of Wikipedia", but as far as I know there is no policy that a person should be born in England to have a biography in the English Wikipedia (or whatever the vote is meant to imply).
*Wang Junxia, Olympic gold medalist, with the argument that the article "looks like a CV" (which it doesn't).
OTOH, this user voted to keep:
*Cathie Jung, whose only accomplishment is having an unusually narrow waist, because of wearing a corset for the last 40 years.
In the case of Lloyd L. Gaines, Megan1967, whose votes I also find strange at times, voted to delete this with the argument that he got "zero Google hits", a patently false assertion which she hasn't bothered to correct in spite of my pointing this out to her. The votes of Megan1967 and JamesBurns together constitute such a significant proportion of the relatively few votes on this article that there seems to be an actual risk of deletion. I hope whichever sysop handles the matter has sense enough to discount these votes.
Both the userpage and the first contributions of JamesBurns date from 26 February 2005, and since then (yesterday!) the overwhelming number of his contributions are to VfD pages. That is remarkable for a new user, isn't it? / Uppland 14:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange behaviour on VfD pages?