Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 17

message: :I agree this is one area in which VfD needs serious work. Would it help if we were a bit bolder in creating talk pages for VfD subpages, and moving any slabs of conversation there?
:Very few VfD subpages do have talk pages, but it's where a lot of this discussion belongs IMO. It's then not included in VfD. VfD subpages should contain only votes and brief comments, which can of course include see the talk page preferably with a link to make it clear which talk page (tutorial advice on wikilinks gladly given).   
:I guess this a counter proposal, but it might achieve the same thing, and all within existing policy. And it doesn't have to be a sysop who does this of course, although IMO it should be a signed-in user. Andrewa 19:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, might be worth a trial run or two. One issue I have with this though: it's a form of m:instruction creep as it creates more work for everyone involved. First, the voters who want to discuss will have to post in two places. Second, it creates work for maintainers cleaning up after verbose voters who forget to be brief on the main vote page (leaving maintainers to move long comments to the talk page). Third, it creates more work for sysops when archiving older discussions (two pages to juggle instead of one). • Benc • 01:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tran Van Ba which seemed a good candidate. Points taken about instruction creep and extra work! This technique should only be used when it's the lesser of two evils. Maybe there's a better way, but until someone comes up with it let's consider this an experiment. Andrewa 20:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And there now has been some feedback, both at my talk page where one user commented I dislike the "experiment" of moving comments from VFD to talk pages (where they will never be read). Despite the name, the purpose of VfD is discussion, not votes, and also at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tran Van Ba. It seems to me that Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a nomination for deletion is worth a look in this regard. Andrewa 00:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: In reply, what I'm talking about is not a sub-sub-page, but the talk page of an existing subpage, and in the default skin there is a tab linking to this (generally non-existent) page already. My proposal is not to move any votes or even brief comments there, only lengthy discussion. IMO the problem is not that there's anything wrong with existing policy, the problem is it's being ignored, and the solution I'm proposing is to follow it. Andrewa 01:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter-proposal

message: I said "Certain size" -- I didn't define the length...  What I meant was to use the template after the discussion was too lengthly.  We'd still do the same thing as we do on the VfD page.  But when someone thinks the discussion is too big (anyone care to define 'too big' in this case?) then the template is used.  Several examples for candidates to use this template is like "Gay Nigger Association of America" or "Elros (and other rulers of Númenor)" (which this template example has been borrowed from) discussion. --AllyUnion (Talk) 05:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First proposal clarification 

message: Have the people who keep arguing for the suspension of VfD actually seen what's on Cleanup and Wikipedia:Pages needing attention?  Those pages are enormous, and very little is getting done about the items listed on those pages.  RickK 22:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
:To be fair, I think we ought to all be looking there more often.  But cleanup of unfamiliar articles takes research and time; it's not the easiest thing in the world to do.  In a perfect world, newbies wouldn't be giving us substubs to clean up, but I guess it comes with the territory.  I've only cleaned up John C. Stennis Space Center so far, and that took the better part of a day.  --Ardonik.talk() 04:57, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
::Yeah, I know.  I work slowly!  --Ardonik.talk() 04:59, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
::I would have to agree with Ardonik. All experienced Wikipedians should take a little time to work on the Cleanup and Pages Needing Attention pages, but having even experienced Wikipedians working on articles they do not understand is no good to anyone. It will only result in more need for cleanup and possible inaccuracies. Personally, I think we need to form some sort of grouping system for Wikipedians who are interested in and/or knowledgable about a certain subject to collect their ideas and work on the articles within their respective fields. However, until something like this happens, the best we can do is keep VfD as an outlet for getting rid of what is not needed and will (most likely) not be cleaned up in the near future. Skyler 13:07, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
:::I only disagree with you in that I think any article can benefit fron the touch of an experienced Wikipedian, even if he or she knows nothing about the subject at hand.  That's what wikification is all about--making articles conform to our guidelines, adding links, copyediting, improving sentence structure, categorizing, adding to lists, formatting articles to look like articles on related subjects, and so on.  After all, don't we all troll Special:Recentchanges every now and then, looking for a new substub to pounce on?  (Or ....)  --Ardonik.talk() 00:22, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
::::A short, grossly inaccurate article does not benefit from being wikified and improved stylistically and grammatically. Obvious advertising is not improved by someone who knows nothing about the product rewording making it unobvious, actually aiding sneaky insertion of advertising material in Wikipedia. Vanity articles don't improve with polish. I've seen also seen many articles "disimproved" by people adding one piece of misinformation after another. It's depressing to come accross articles that have been given bits of spot editing, a stub notice added, minor bits of cleanup, categorized three different times, had links added to it, and so forth, and through all this have remained fundamentally crap. Jallan 13:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention]]

message: Maybe I've just misunderstood the way that old VfD discussions are archived, but is Template:VfD-Blimey really supposed to be there? - RedWordSmith 23:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to talk:Blimey. -Sean Curtin 04:05, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
This is a hold-over from before we developed the current archiving process (see Wikipedia:Deletion process).  Yes, the discussion pages are supposed to hang around forever.  For kept pages (including kept as a redirect), they are linked to and referenced on the article's Talk page.  For deleted pages, the link is recorded at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates.  We formalized the archiving process after several articles were deleted then recreated but no one could find the record of the debate, forcing us to go through the whole mess again.  We also had some articles that were kept, were renominated and no one could find that debate either.  It's relatively cheap to keep the discussion around forever. Rossami 13:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:VfD-Blimey 

message: Copied from the Village Pump:
Lore Sjoberg, a journalist at Wired Magazine (and who is mentioned at Lightbulb joke) has an entry on his [site] about Wikipedia and specifically the VfD pages, which he finds "endlessly fascinating".  Nothing too earth shattering, although he classes Wikipedia as a guilty pleasure equal to Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion.  --Roisterer 02:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Short and thought-provoking IMO, nothing too radical perhaps but very well put. Recommended reading for all those who wish to discuss whether VfD should change, and how to achieve the desired result either way. I copy it here becuase it's relevant and my experience is there are far too many active talk pages on Wikipedia to regularly read all the relevant ones even to a single policy issue. Andrewa 03:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wired article 

message: It is convenient to edit only the first section of the VfD page when updating the date links (for example, removing a date when all entries have been processed off the /Old page).  Section edit reduces the chance of an edit conflict.  It's also a lot more usable on a dial-up connection.  I've added a (somewhat) discrete link to edit the first section.  It is at the end of the "Current Votes" line.  Rossami 03:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  header maintenance 

message: I've created a guide to "un-including" large and/or unanimous discussions at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance. Comments and edits are welcome, of course. • Benc • 09:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-including discussions