Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Poorman (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 8 September 2005 (CONTROL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.


MY GREATEST CONCERN

My greatest concern the five pillars of Wikipedia are slowly being changed to make it easier to delete by Vfd. This will allow "blocks of users" to delete and control.

--Poorman


Abuse of VFD for Wikipedia: namespace

We've been tolerating VFD votes for pages in Wikipedia: namespace for a while, but...

What often happens if that these vfd votes turn into majority voting on the policy or project described on the wikipedia: namespace page. Um. Oops.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I have a bit of a problem with letting majoritanism in through the back door like this.

So I suggest that from now on Wikipedia: namespace vfds should be declared invalid and closed. (And we should warn people opening them that this is in fact the case.)

I don't think anyone would be seriously opposed to this, as it is the actual old policy, but just to be sure, I'm posting here, just so you know what's up :-)

Kim Bruning 14:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well you really need moe than a simple majority to get any page deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but a lot of people are treating it as if a supermajority really would be sufficient, which is obviously wrong. Kim Bruning 15:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point there, and I have added a "keep" vote to the discussion to try and offset it. Then again some policy proposals are just disruption... Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty and Wikipedia:Administrators cannot vote come to mind. Then again, thinking about it, Everyking had a good point when he argued against the deletion of these. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the use of VfD to try and delete a Wikipedia namespace page is usually a violation of WP:POINT and should be treated as such. Fenice, for example, nominated Wikipedia:Template locations for deletion simply because he was in an argument about the location of the WP:IDRIVE templates and didn't like that article being mentioned. I removed the nomination. violet/riga (t) 15:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see the problem with VfD'ing Wikipedia: space proposals. It's just a poll by another means. Except that it's a doubly useful poll: do you (a) support the policy (so vote keep) or (b)support the policy but think it should be discussed some (so vote keep) (c)oppose the policy, but think it should be discussed some (so vote keep) or (d)oppose the policy so strongly you think it should be removed altogether (so vote delete). -Splash 15:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, some of the kookie proposals that have been on VfD lately have got far more exposure there than they'd every have got if they'd been left to rot by themselves. The VfD process allows for comment as much as a poll on a policy does; I don't see the problem in removing policy discussions that have significant community desire for removal. Plain silly nominations (such as the one for TfD) get keeped very easily. -Splash 15:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I agree with Kim and Violet; we should go back to not allowing anything other than null-namespace delete votes here (articles, that is). Too often (read: almost exclusively), nominations for deletion of Wikipedia:-space are by those who strongly oppose the suggested guideline, rather than by people noticing their being out of date and un-useful. Real discussions for deletion could go somewhere more appropriate, like on the discussion page perhaps, with suitable notices on AN, etc.. James F. (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Often the nomination of Wikipedia: namespace page is for purposes of WP:POINT, or a misguided attempt to reject a proposed policy. On the other hand, sometimes those policy proposals are themselves instances of WP:POINT or thinly-veiled (or overt) personal attacks. In those cases, I'm not so sure that deletion isn't a valid fate for those 'proposals'.
I'm not overly concerned about people using VfD as a way to force the implementation of a majority view on a policy. As noted above, deletion requires (at a minimum) something like a two-thirds majority, and substantially more from some VfD closers. As well, there is a significant fraction of VfD voters who will oppose the deletion of any genuine policy proposal on principle (for exactly the reasons Kim Bruning has mentioned) even if they are opposed to the proposal itself. Deletion of Wikipedia: space pages is only supported by those editors when it is obvious that a particularly egregious abuse is taking place.
Another concern about narrowing VfD's scope is that it will render the Wikipedia: namespace much more vulnerable to misuse. Certain trolls and vandals are very likely to discover that they can make nearly any WP:POINT they want in the Wikipedia: space and get away with it. It will lead to nasty arguments on WP:AN/I about how "You can't delete that! It's in the Wikipedia: space!"
James F., if the discussions on AN or the article discussion pages found that a Wikipedia: namespace page should be deleted, we'd have to rewrite policy to do so, and it would probably result in the same sort of complaints afterward that I described in the previous paragraph. Perhaps we could create a separate page for managing deletions, merges, and so forth of Wikipedia: namespace pages, but I'm not sure why it would be necessary.
Finally, as often happens with articles in the main namespace, VfD can act as a very rapid RfC/cleanup. Although it tends to be (unfortunately) more acrimonious in tone, VfDing a policy proposal often does seem to lead to thorough community consultation and comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any policy page should ever be deleted. Equally, I think a blanket ban on deleting pages in the Wikipedia namespace is a poor idea. If it's WP:POINT, then remove it as such. If it's not, allow a proper debate on the subject. [[smoddy]] 15:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating a good faith policy page (even one that has been rejected) is clearly abusive. But any blanket ban is itself subject to abuse, allowing trolls to dump crap like Wikipedia:execution of deletionist wikipedians with alacrity. As it's essentially impossible for policy to adequately define "good faith", VfD will have to do. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I think having VFD for these decisions is probably a really REALLY bad idea. Hmmm, it might be wiser to get a consensus for deletion on the associated talk page of the policy, as part of the policy-making process itself. This would also cut down on mess on vfd, and keeps all the policy discussion in one place. Is that a decent plan? Kim Bruning 16:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that not everything put in the Wikipedia namespace is a policy. Do I have to remind you about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Guide to Cannibilism? :) I might support saying no policy pages, since that's what it seems you're getting at, and otherwise it might be a loophole. Dmcdevit·t 18:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This section does seem to be confused. Sometimes people are talking about pages in the Wikipedia space, sometimes about policy pages. I don't know what the percentage is (anybody?), but I'd be willing to bet that a sizable majority of Wikipedia:N pages are not policy pages.

I agree with those above who'd support a ban on VfDs for policy pages, but I don't see the problem with VfDing non-policy pages. Nor do I see how holding a VfD process on the associated talk page is any different — tidier, more efficient, less "majoritarian", etc. There are too many editors whose purpose here isn't to create and improve an encyclopædia, but to push a PoV; one of their outlets is agitprop WikiProjects and other Wikipedia:N pages designed to create anti-consensus cliques. Why shouldn't the wider community be able to get together to stop such shenanigans? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any sane wikipedian left today who still doubts that wikipedia namespace vfds are a Really Bad Idea? :-P Kim Bruning 20:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any sane Wikipedian left today who still doubts VfD is a Really Bad Idea? :-P JRM · Talk 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sane Wikipedians? <smirk> -Satori 20:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, you honor your name. :-) JRM · Talk 20:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exempt Policy Pages from Vfd?

Recently a number of Wikipedia pages have been nominated for deletion. I believe this is not a desired use for the Vfd process: generally, these articles turn out to be keeps, but they are a waste of time which could be spent actually debating policy rather than voting to keep the document that describes it. See:

  1. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection
  2. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Template standardisation
  3. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Infobox_standardisation
  4. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion
I propose therefore, that policy be revised such that all pages for Wikipedia policies, semi-policies, and active proposals be completely exempted from nomination for Votes for Deletion, so long as a policy is in effect, a proposal remains active, or a consensus has not been established to delete the historical information about a former policy.
Any official policy, guideline page, or historical page about either that was promoted for deletion would be speedily delisted, unless there was a discussion on the talk page with consensus or non-opposition for deletion at and at least 3 days prior to the time of nomination; with a given reason of "Changes to policies and proposals, including making them no longer policy are to be decided on the corresponding discussion pages". --Mysidia (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would approve of this. The proper place to debate policies or proposals is on thier own talk pages, or voting pages. I wuld also extend this to official guidelines or proposed guidelines, on the same terms. DES (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reword, scope creep. VFD was originally conceived for the null namespace, and it's clearly done enough damage there already. Let's at least keep it restricted to the null namespace. At least that way we keep the wikinomic players away. Vandalism in the wikipedia: namespace would typically be quite obvious, and can be speedied. Kim Bruning 07:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An exemption on VfD'ing proposed policies would be a bad idea. See: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/No infobox_standardization. Eugene van der Pijll 13:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh yes, I've seen that example, and the fallout is pretty nasty. Let's not do that ever again thanks. (Folks who disagree should join Wikipedia:Mediation or WP:TINMC, so they can clean up their own damn messes.) Kim Bruning 13:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a change to Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, please see its talk page --Mysidia (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like a few people over on the morals and vaules project, have been going around nominating silly things for VfD, then running back to their own VfD claiming that deleting their project will more or less "open the flood gate sof hell and destroy our encyclopdia, bla bla bla" so I wouldn't take it too seriously, mods know a pink elephant when they see one, those VfDs lasted about 20 seconds, before being deleted - anon

Unclosed nom?

Can someone figure out why Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Erythorbin acid was never closed? RJFJR 03:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though it was never actually listed on the VfD page, so technically it has not even opened. - SimonP 03:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I have completed the nomination. Given the state of the nomination, it was less work to complete it that to remove it. --Allen3 talk 13:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Welch

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matt_Welch isn't appearing on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_20 - What did I do wrong? - I noticed it was up for vfd, but couldn't find its listing on the current pages so tried to add it to the log for the right day. Richard Taylor 16:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

This VFD is listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 17, but is insanely massive. I know it's not the norm, but might I suggest changing that section in the log from a transcluded page to a linked one? My browser SCREAMS at me if I attempt to load that log page. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 15:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. People have been doing that for quite a while in case of huge nominations. I don't know if the VFD bot can handle it, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. JRM · Talk 15:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance for the recommended procedure. We used to have to do this much more often. Un-transclusion should be rare but is still occasionally necessary. Rossami (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Wikinetusergroups

Help them fix it - A lot of netusergroups article pages are appearing in VfD. In one, I suggested that they ought to have their own wiki and Uncle G suggested anyone could start one and the instructions are at Wiki Science, please pass this on to anyone posting this type of material, some of them are likely to be in a position to get it rolling and reduce the VfD. Alf 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name change (again)

The name "Votes for Deletion" was based on the old Wikipedia software which actually supported voting. For prior discussion of this, see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title and Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/May 2005 Part Two#Moving_this_page.

I would like to formally propose changing the name from "Votes for deletion" (perhaps to "Articles for deletion" just to be consistent with the other deletion sub-processes).

We have discussed this before and have always concluded that "it's a good idea but not worth the effort". I've changed my mind. We are spending too much time and energy reminding users that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that the deletion process is about consensus, not vote-counting. The name itself is creating confusion and setting inappropriate expectations.

I am ready to volunteer to do the work to change the name. How much work are we talking about? Rossami (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Consensus to do anything at all

  • I think if people agree to this we should just start and then we'll see where we end up. Kim Bruning 23:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me... I think the perception that VfD is about vote counting just encourages new users to create sockpuppets, something that seems to be happening more frequently as of late. I think anything we can do to help new users understand WP:CON is worth the effort. -Satori (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly ambivalent about this, for no particular reason, but: does anyone know what the impact of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of redirects created would be? They're cheap and fun, I know, but that many of them? Unless you'd plan to leave the archives where they are, but that'd only be putting a figleaf over things. -Splash 23:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is worth the effort and I am willing to help. Leaving the archives with the old name seems appropriate to me. I have no problem with "votes" being part of our history. —Theo (Talk) 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all in favor of taking a kick at this one again. How can I help? Denni☯ 00:38, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
  • I'm still in favour of a title that is more in line with Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, just as I was in May 2005. Uncle G 14:56:09, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of the rename. I hate the misleading name of "votes" for deletion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been previously opposed to this, but if there are this many on board, we might as well do it. I'll help in any way I can. android79 17:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would be better to de-emphasize voting as much as possible. So it would be better if this page were renamed. Whether it is worth all the trouble I don't know, but I'd be willing to help. But before we make any such dramatic change to such a central and sensitive part of the 'pedia we need to make sure that we have a clear and overwhelming consensus for this change. That means more than just the handful of people who have expressed their agreement above. Paul August ☎ 22:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    Just start and see who reverts. :-) (works fine for other wikis!) Kim Bruning 22:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, please. We never get anything done as it is. Umm, can't we claim this is a representative sample? I see several admins, could they block people who oppose it?
    I'm kidding, really! But seriously, I can only imagine people opposing on the grounds of "I don't think this is necessary" and, indeed, "I love the idea, but you didn't wait for me to put in my two cents, so now I'm going to have to oppose you". JRM · Talk 22:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to say that I think you guys are all nuts to want to tackle the task of moving the mountain. That said, if you want to do it, I have no objection. Dragons flight 01:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's do it, and consider renaming Votes for Undeletion to Content for Undeletion or something similar, also? --Mysidia (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the rename. This is the most pointless thing ever. Please write encyclopedia instead. Votes are votes and there is nothing wrong with the word. Maybe Wikipedia is not a democracy but we should strive to make it more like democracy or we'll turn in commiepedia with no way for non-admins to influence stuff. I will personally revert any attempt to make the rename without clear consensus from a _vote_ on a separate page (this one is too long and unusable for most people).  Grue  06:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy cow this process is going at light speed - I just noticed the change today. Anyway, I really don't think this will stem something contentious such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stardestroyer.net2 from sock/meatpuppets. Also, the ones with sockpuppets were kind of entertaining Vote to Keeeeeeeep LHP!!!. However, it really doesn't make that much difference to me but I think there should be a big announcement somewhere (the vfd page implies that there is a discussion going on not an actual change). That said, name it Articles for Deletion, PLEASE :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully support the rename. Pretty much every other Wikipedia I've looked at already calls it "pages for deletion", for example Poistettavat sivut in Finnish or Sidor som borde raderas in Swedish (literally "pages to be deleted"). German calls it Löschkandidaten, "candidates for deletion". — JIP | Talk 12:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people want to change the name(s)... go ahead, do it! Yet I think it is completely pointless, even if surely well intentioned. Do you really believe that a name change will improve anything? What will users say on the new Pages for Deletion (or whatever)? They will have to say if they think it should be kept, deleted, etc.. How will an admin determine the global opinion? The same way he does now! Counting votes opinions *and* using his good judgement to evaluate the community feeling. Most of the sockpuppets I notice do give their (very strong) opinion, so they won't be stopped a bit by this. The only big problem I see with VfD is not the name, neither the process, it is user attitude towards it but that would be off-topic here. Nabla 17:54:43, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
  • I suggest, for defeating acrimony as much as anything else, a straw poll for just a couple of days. Yes, revert wars are great on other wikis, and improve them. Wikipedia is different by an order of magnitude. Bold is great. Calm-headed is better. Apart from anything, I want to know what's happening! For a subject as big as VfD, I think this is the best way to go. [[smoddy]] 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly oppose. Yes the page was stupidly named originally but to rename the page at this stage, and waste all the effort doing it, would be nuts. Everyone on Wikipedia knows what VfD is. No organisation with an ounce of sense would invest all the time and effort to make what would be a minor change that would potentially cause confusion all over the place. It would be an utter waste of time and effort with no likely benefit and major potential downsides in terms of confusion. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadly, I oppose this as 'think this is a waste of time. I just don't see the point. Later: softened my comment somewhat here. Go ahead, it can't do any harm. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with what several other people here have said: This is a vast waste of time. It's silly that this much effort has gone into it already. The problems with the current deletion system are inherent in the basic facts of its structure, implementation, and philosophy; renaming a few pages and changing a few guidelines isn't going to change that. The effort invested here would be better spent trying to get consensus for a real solution, such as the Pure Wiki deletion system, that would allow us to eliminate complicated deletion requests and deletion reviews completely. Those are the problems here, not the names we use for them; as long as editors have to go through complicated channels to perform a basic maintenance and editing tasks like page deletion, the system's problems will just keep getting worse. Aquillion 05:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposed move--it won't do any harm, and I'd suspect that the work involved won't be that much greater than cleaning up after a Willy on Wheels attack. Might have some positive effects. let's give it a try. Meelar (talk) 17:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I don't no whether I'm supporting "Articles for deletion" of "Pages for deletion". I'd prefer articles. Superm401 | Talk 22:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to say that I'm strongly in favour, and that AfD is much better. Help convince people that this is a way a gauging consensus rather that a straight vote, as well as be more understandable. James F. (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support. We aren't deleting votes. 'Votes for deletion' is a silly name, heck some of the votes/expressed opinions/straw votes are for keeping the article so why not call it 'Votes for keeping'? Also, familiarity with the old name doesn't strike me as a very powerful argument. I think a simple redirect would be enough to help people find the new location. Intangir 00:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, just in case my comments elsewhere are not clear enough. - SimonP 02:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose change, for change sake is pointless. Adjusting all these pages because the established system works but is not necessarily prettiest seems redundant. Not only does it work but its become established. It would be like eBay changing their name to Ebay because the spelling is better.--Machtzu 05:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change. "Votes for Deletion" is sufficiently bad to warrant doing something. It is not a big factor in making VfD unnecessarily unpleasant, but it is a factor. Some time ago I suggested changing the name (I think my own suggestion was "Editorial review."). "Votes for Deletion" has big problems. Many newbies assume from the name that it is a voting process, and, despite all the links and explanations, that it is a majority vote. I've participated in several VfD's where it was obvious to even slightly experienced participants that the article would be kept, but the article contributor believed that it was in danger of deletion, adding unnecessary tension to an intrinsically unpleasant process. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose meaningless formalism. It's still vfD regardless of what you call it.
  • Oppose, too much confusion and the transition from Vfd to Afd on the old pages still listed for deletion are making me not wanna vote on older pages because i dont know where to put my vote. Jobe6 02:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus 08:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - This is a meaningless alteration whichever way you look at it. It's modifying the issue's style, when what really needs to be modified is the substance (process of deletion) of the issue. It's superficial either way.--Knucmo2 10:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on building a consensus

Assuming that there are no technical problems with this move, I think that this move, though a lot of work, is probably a good idea. But as I said above I think we have to build a clear consensus for this change. This is not something that can easily be undone. And It is imperative that we not add to the perception that Wikipedia is run by a "chosen few". I think we can achieve a clear consensus for this change, but it will take some work. I think the right way to go about it would not to have a vote. Rather I think we should create a page containing a statement of the reasons for this change, signed by all of us who support and "sponsor" this change. And we all try to convince other editors to sign this statement and become "sponsors". And we make the change only after a sufficient number of sponsors have signed the statement, so that it is clear to everyone that a consensus exists. Perhaps we could call the page: Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Statement in support of renaming VfD. Anyone care to turn that red link blue? Paul August ☎ 20:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

This shouldn't really be a vote, since discussion is very advanced, and the objections to Articles for deletion have been satisfied by the creation of Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Any annoyance during the change is going to be purely temporary, as any major change to any page will prove. --Titoxd 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You say that but Ta bu shi da yu is against it and it is not clar to me that there is a consensus. If the discussion is very advanced and most people are in agreement then getting 60% behind one proposal should be easy to get and will clarify what the new name should be. Philip Baird Shearer 00:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pure sillyness and a waste of your time.--michael180 14:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the individual discussion pages

  • There are templates (such as {{db-repost}} tghat make automatic links to past VfD pages based on article nme. Unless you move old archives, you break these templates for any page with a VfD prior to the move. DES (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could also fix it by finding the uses of those templates and changing them from dynamic links to hard links - replace the {{PAGENAME}} with the actual pagename. Not sure which would be less work. Or we could simply leave that template alone and replace it with a new one that serves the same purpose. I see. Withdrawn. Rossami (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update {{db-repost}} to use the new name, and mass-rename the old discussions. This does not require a mass army of editors to perform renames. See below. Uncle G 15:43:42, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
        • That works. Rossami's idea doesn't, because {{db-repost}} could be applied tomorrow to a recration of a page VfD'd last month, and the link is suppsoed to go to the Old vfd page to document the prior deletion. So new uses must link to old archives. DES (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is going to be done, you're going to need a lot of people, and you're probably going to overload the server for a few hours or so. Out of curiosity, I googled "Votes for Deletion," restricting results to those found only in en.wikipedia.org, and I got 66,800 hits [1]. Holy Cow... --Titoxd 04:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a similar analysis using "what links here". Many of them are user Talk pages. I suspect that we can just allow the redirect to work for those links. Rossami (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you take up my offer, please be aware that I would be limiting the rate at which renames are performed by imposing a fixed delay between successive requests. Uncle G 15:43:42, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • Maybe a bot could help? Kim Bruning 14:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget, along fixing with the templates, you'd have to move all the subpages as well. Also, we still have the business of fixing from the prior move (All those MediaWiki pages, and I don't know if those were completed at all...) --AllyUnion (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of the overall task of writing a tool to semi-automatically transwikify things directly into the Wikibooks Cookbook, I have written a tool to rename pages. It can be used to do mass renames. It already has been used to do so (outside of the WikiMedia projects).

    All that I need for you to provide me with is a simple, one title per line, text file listing all of the "X", and I can automatically rename all of the old Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/X discussion pages to Wikipedia:Pages for Deletion/X for you. If you produce a similar list of "X" from Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace, I can do those renames for you at the same time. If you produce such lists, I'll set up a specialist 'bot account for the purpose, and propose having the flag added to it at Wikipedia:bots.

    An alternative to my offer is getting a developer to run a script to perform a server-side rename. Whilst that will be far more efficient, it will also involve roping in a busy developer to help with something that we can do ourselves, and don't even need administrator privileges to do, let alone developer privileges. Uncle G 15:43:42, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

  • I think that if you are going to move the mountain you need to move all the gritty bits underneath, so yes the archive too. However, I would seriously recommend talking to a developer before deploying a bot to do this. Each page move, in addition to changing the record refering to the article, also changes all watchlists that reference that page, any categories containing it, makes a log entry, and I don't know what else. The fact that VFDs are also used as templates means the VFD logs are also affected, etc. I would suggest you get the developers blessing that doing this en masse is not going to cause the servers to melt. It's probably okay (Willy doesn't create any actual fires after all), but better safe than sorry. Dragons flight 01:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

What name to use?

Thanks for continuing to add to the list. It's a scary amount of work. I still think it's worth it (with the caveat that we should have a separate discussion about whether or not we really need to move all the archived deletion debates). Hearing no major objections, can we move on to agreeing on a new name?

Pages for deletion is imperfect but it does parallel the others - "Templates for ...", "Redirects for ...", Categories for ...", etc. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh yeah, in response to the rest... "VFU" should be "deletion review". "Articles for deletion" is a bad name, since userpages and Wikispace pages do occasionally end up here (and sometimes get consensus to delete) - but the latter two occur rarely enough that they don't warrant their own process. Radiant_>|< 11:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • We might as well change "Votes for undeletion" while we're at it. And I might as well change the name of my bot along with it. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do this, and given the recent proposals to use VfU to also review allegedly improper keep results, perhaps VfU should be called "Deletion review"? Failing that, call it "Requests for undeletion" perhaps? Note that VfU now handles all namespaces, not just "articles". If we cahnge the anme of VfD to AfD, will that go along with a policy change to put pages in the wikipedia nameapce out of its scope, posisbly creating "WfD" (Wikipedia pages for deletion)? DES (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer "Articles for Deletion" as it would help clarify that this page is not generally meant to be used for policy or user pages, but I am fine with PfD. - SimonP 17:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I too would prefer "Articles for Deletion" but could live with PfD. Steve block talk 21:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going to handle article space and WP: space deletions in the same place, I like PfD. However, I wouldn't mind seeing AfD different place for doing WP deletions – it might be a good idea to hash out some policy on that, separate from articles. android79 21:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I too prefer AfD and WfD (hoping that the latter will remain very quiet indeed. —Theo (Talk) 21:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We see enough userpages showing up that I think PfD is the best bet. But I'm not averse to AfD either. RfU is a fine suggestion. Denni☯ 01:17, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
  • I prefer PfD and Deletion Review. No WfD. A specialist page no one visits will only hide problems when someone tries to delete Wikipedia pages. Dragons flight 01:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I also prefer to split AfD from WfD. Several stupid WP: namespace pages have been kept by users stating "only main namespace articles go on VfD" and then drawing a blank when asked "then where do WP and User pages go for deletion?". Furthermore, those rare inappropriate user namespace pages ought to also be bundled into WfD as well. If consensus doesn't support splitting WfD from AfD, then whatever VfD ends up becoming should explicitly cover WP: and User: namespace pages. On the marginalization of WfD: What if the WfD process includes a suggestion that WfDed pages (especially those in use) are mentioned elsewhere, such as on RfC or the Village Pump? Also, WfD ought to have a longer grace period before discussion closure, as it'll be (as noted) much less visible than AfD. Renaming VfU should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion, though the final result of that should wait until after this discussion (and subsequent move, if any) concludes.. -Sean Curtin 02:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be either AfD with a simultaneously created WfD, or it should be PfD with no change of scope. AfD alone doesn't match up to VfD closely enough. And I have little idea whether I should comment here, at WP:RM or somplace else. Making VfU into Deletion Review is ok, as long as people plan to respect its new jurisdiction. -Splash 05:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with AFD is that it would make us unable to delete user pages and Wikipedia namespace pages. While I'm sure that nobody in their right mind would nominate official policy for deletion, there is some junk in Wikipedia namespace, and it must be possible to get rid of it. So, we can either do "PFD", or have both "AFD" and "UWFD". But what's the need for a fork? Radiant_>|< 07:44, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. We always say that VfD takes precedent. Well even if we split off WP, etc. if we're going to have something take precedent, it should be called something broad like PfD. Dmcdevit·t 08:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • AfD is also my first choice. It'd kinda suck if we all grabbed the 2nd choice just 'cause it looks easier (though PfD is my waybehind second choice and if it's a Go then it's a Go and I'll go with it.) . Anyone actually actively opposed to renaming to AfD? Kim Bruning 10:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally, when this came up before, favoured Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But the discussion here (in particular Kim Bruning's argument that indicates that yes, using that name is seen to be introducing along with it a new exclusion of the Wikipedia:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, Help:, and User: namespaces where there isn't one now) has swayed me towards Wikipedia:Pages for deletion. If it prevents us from deleting the advertisement user pages of zero-contribution users, or from deleting article content deliberately hidden in other namespaces, it's not a good thing. As User:Mel Etitis points out above, the whole argument about excluding these namespaces is based upon the erroneous conception that the only things in the Wikipedia: namespace are policy pages. I assure you that Wikipedia:The Wikipedian's Prayer, Wikipedia:User:Mrbob, and Wikipedia:TourBusStop are not policy pages. Wikipedia: is the project namespace, not the policy namespace.

    Other points that sway me:

    • There has been mention of "WfD" to cover the Wikipedia:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, Help:, and User: namespaces. No-one has explained what they believe the "W" stands for. There isn't a substantive proposal as to what this hypothetical hived-off area would be named, let alone look like. "Wikipedia for deletion" is obviously not the intention. ☺ But "MediaWiki, Portal, Project, Help, and User pages for deletion" doesn't abbreviate to "WfD", either. ☺
    • Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion are not just separate from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion because the things that are deleted are in separate namespaces. They are separate because the mechanics of deleting those things are different to the mechanics of deleting the things that Votes for deletion deals in. Deleting a category involves ('bot assisted) depopulation of the category. Deleting a template involves removing or substituting the template wherever it is transcluded. Deleting an uploaded image or medial file involves actually deleting that uploaded file itself. On the other hand, deleting a Wikipedia:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, Help, or User: namespace page is mechanically identical to deleting a main namespace page. (Deleting redirects is mechanically identical. However, the policy on whether a redirect should be deleted is substantially different to the policy on whether a non-redirect should be deleted. Having a separate area also separates a substantial amount of traffic out from Votes for deletion, which wouldn't be the case for separating out the project, help, user, MediaWiki, and portal pages.)
  • Uncle G 13:20:26, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
  • How about "Wikipeida:Items for deletion". Not as specific as WP:Articles for deletion (a good choice as well in my opinion), but Items is an all encompassing term, and items such as templates, photographs, categories etc.etc. that are not applicable for discussion at that place, can be directed to more appropriate forums for discussion. Hamster Sandwich 19:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer AfD and NfD = non-main namespace pages for deletion (per Uncle G). Paul August ☎ 20:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Planning the changeover

  • How about this... we can do it gradually. If we rename today's page to "Pages for deletion/log" and update the template, then every new nomination will go there. Wait a week and voila! Radiant_>|< 11:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be good to set an exact time and date for when this process will begin. I've long supported this as well, and will do what I can to help. We will need a bot if we are going to move all the archived subpages, but I don't see renaming these as crucial. These can wait until later, if we do feel necessary to move them. Agree about VfU, but this might require some separate discussion as to a name. VfU is also used for categories and other non-articles so "Articles for undeletion" might be inappropriate. - SimonP 00:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Gradual is good. Start gradually in um, in 24 hours? I think AfD is cleanest? (PfD collides with TfD and IfD, so it sounds cool, but is confusing again (no gain :-P ) ). Gradual also allows people to jump in and protest, so consensus has more time to work :-) Kim Bruning 22:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see the changeover start during off-peak hours. Where do we find when the next "low cycle" is going to occur? --Titoxd 22:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kim Bruning's plan sounds good to me. Weekends in general are slower, so tomorrow at this time should be ideal. - SimonP 23:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I trust the name is going to be PfD since the assumptive change already made uses that? I can't help but think that AfD is a way to afford Wikipedia: space pages immunity by the backdoor. -Splash 01:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was some discussion of creating a separate WfD page for deeltion of pages in the Wikipedia namepace. If that is done, AfD works just fine. DES (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does. But only if that is done. If that isn't done, and there is after-the-fact lawyering over the semantics of the page title next a Wikipedia: page comes here, it will be most disappointing. -Splash 05:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Front door actually. VfD was originally only for the null (or main) namespace. It's been sneaking into Wikipedia: space, causing all kinds of fun and entertaining wikinomic games (NOT!). At least the semantics-lawyering will put a speedbump on wikipedia: page nomination slightly. Something like this?
        "While I realise that this is Articles for deletion, I'm going to nominate this Wikipedia: namespace page anyway, because it's obviously useless/vandalism/broken/etc, and it's just the one page, so thank you for considering it."
        Would that hurt terribly? Otherwise I'm willing to compromise if I have to. Kim Bruning 10:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If renaming to "Articles for deletion" is a speedbump for wikipedia: nominations, and if that means that one has to apologize for nominating wikipedia: articles: I'm against this proposal. "Pages for deletion" is much better. Eugene van der Pijll 10:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no-one has any objections to the Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion+Wikipedia:Articles for deletion combination (that don't boil down to simply "nobody's heard of the former yet"), I propose that we boldly create the {{nfd1}}, {{nfd2}}, and {{nfd3}} templates and switch all current and not yet closed and new Wikipedia:/Help:/User:/Portal:/MediaWiki: deletion discussions to there from Monday 2005-08-29. That will settle the name debate and leave us free to concentrate upon the actual task. Uncle G 15:41:50, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Announcement?

Where was the announcement that this was going to occur? Where was the vote that this was going to happen? Why wasn't the community given the opportunity to discuss this? Why is the page being renamed without community input? Zoe 21:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • The input is here, the time is now. Say your piece! :-) (Announce too if you like!) Kim Bruning 22:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's already been done, and the template:vfd changed to point to the new page. Zoe 22:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Mmm, yes, awful. Much too bold. Horrible. I have to do something about this. :-) JRM · Talk 23:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is moving a little faster than I'd anticipated. However, no one has yet raised an objection. How much time would you like to think about it?

          By the way, I would much prefer that we make this decision through concensus. If we do this right, we should never need to put it to a vote. Voting is evil. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

          • See, that's my concern -- it's being done as a fait accompli, without consensus. I'm not saying I'm opposed, just don't jam it down people's throats. Zoe 23:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, the fact that it's a big thing when it shouldn't be is already a clue. We really should do a move, just so we get a chance to look at what kind of cruft has accumulated under the sordid bulk of VfD. Um but right, as to consensus: You are getting your chance to help form consensus now, and you may in fact solicit input from anyone anywhere, along any path as you see fit. We're also going to at least start *gradually* so more people will catch on that we're trying something, so it's not like all of VfD will be renamed tomorrow morning to the surprised stares of all the wikipedians coming in. (Drat, I should have formed a cabal... :-P). Fair enough? Kim Bruning 17:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Template:vfd points to both sub-pages at the moment. Uncle G 23:54:10, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
  • I announced this discussion on Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) and on Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion some hours ago. I've just announced it at Wikipedia:Requested moves as well. Uncle G 23:54:10, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
    • "Hours" really isn't enough time to allow for any real input, especially on a move of this scope. There's no consensus on the new name right now, and I fear that moving things is going to result in edit warring. -Sean Curtin 02:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am (mildly) in favor of this change, but I do think you are going forward a bit too fast. I would have prefered that it be left on the pump and on RfC for several days at least before work started. DES (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody said that it was. The question asked was "Where was the announcement that this was going to occur?". Uncle G 03:33:13, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
    • "Hours"? People have lives, you know, they may not even be at their computer now (or live in a different time zone and be asleep). (The current page layout would require that I post my concerns in a separate comment in about every section, but I can't be bothered, so here are my consolidated 2 cents) I personally don't feel there's a great need for this change (it's semantics nit-picking anyway), on the other hand, if it's done well, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. I'm worried about the current state, though: there's no consensus on the name(s), and the technical impact of changing or referring to thousands of old VfDs is unclear. --IByte 17:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any need to put a protracted discussion in the way of this, it's clearly a good move. Keep it up you crazy mountain-shifters! Flowerparty talk 03:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BOLD works for me, though I would rather have "Articles for deletion" rather than "Pages for deletion." Anything is better than "votes," though. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is going a little too fast. At least let's get clear consensus on the final names before starting to make changes. DES (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link...?

In the color-coded section outlining the three steps for deletion, section three specifically, a large-font link takes you to a Votes for Deletion page. Shouldn't that link take you to a Pages for Deletion page? I'm still trying to figure this procedure out, and it doesn't seem to be working for me. Paul Klenk 17:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD/AFD/PFD

Okay. Reading over the discussion above, I find six people in favor of Pages for deletion (Rossami, Radiant, Android, Denni, Dragons Flight, Dmcdevit), and seven in favor of Articles for deletion (SimonP, Steve Block, Theo, Desiegel, Sean Curtain, Uninvited, Kim Bruning). In other words, nearly tied - although many people state that they don't mind either choice particularly much.

So it boils down to this. We need a mechanism for deletion of pages in the Wikipedia namespace. This mechanism is presently VFD. It occasionally gets abused (e.g. the "Wikipedians for Decency" disaster) but it is generally used well (e.g. the "Non-admin noticeboard", "Forbid infobox standardizing", outdated and dysfunctional index pages, never-used wikiprojects, etc, all got sensible discussion and most ended up deleted). The same applies to userspace - userpage nominations are exceedingly rare but sometimes needed.

So we can either 1) name this page "Pages for deletion" and accept the fact that pages in the Wikipedia, Help, Portal and User namespaces (and whatever new namespaces appear) can be nominated here, or 2) name this page "Articles for deletion" and fork off a new process page for the other namespaces (preferably not one per namespace, though).

My personal opinion would be that nominations from the latter category are rare enough that a separate process isn't needed. Hence, my preference for PFD. Other thoughts welcome. Radiant_>|< 11:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Very well, but PFD remains my second choice only, because it's ambiguous with TFD, CFD etc (those are also pages, right?). Also, the PFD name might seem to suggest that other namespace deletion might be a good idea (which it isn't IMHO). Could you address this point in reply here please? Thanks :-) Kim Bruning 11:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, VFD has never been very ambiguous with TFD, CFD etc (despite the fact that all are "votes" to an equal extent). So I don't think that PFD would be ambiguous with the other *FD. From a technical point of view, just about everything in Wikipedia is a "page" - but from a logical point of view, cats, tls and images are part of a page and represent various sets of metadata.

      If I understand your second point correctly, you believe that nothing should ever be deleted from Wikipedia, Portal, Help and User namespaces (other than via WP:CSD). Frankly, I disagree. Portal and Help are too new to have acquired much cruft, but Userspace pops up the occasional "free webpage" idea, and those nasty 'hit list' pages. But most importantly, Wikipedia namespace contains junk. Lots of it, actually. Check Special:Allpages if you don't believe me; I found (and got deleted) over a dozen junkpages in the first part of the list alone. Radiant_>|< 11:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute—just because VfD currently also handles Wikipedia and User pages doesn't mean it has to keep doing that under a new name, right?

User pages are rarely deleted. When they are, it's even rarer for that to need discussion. Same with Wikipedia pages. Most of the junk that ends up in these namespaces is speedyable. For those few pages that need discussion, can't we just set up a new page, per Radiant? If this helps us move along from shibboleth issues on how the new page should be named, I'd be all for it. JRM · Talk 12:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I don't feel we even need a new page. Problem user pages and policies are best dealt with through the current conflict resolution system. The RFC process allows for more discussion, and precedent already allows us to delete content if an RFD consensus deems it necessary. While faster, the deletion system is not designed for dealing with policy and user pages, and rarely works well in these areas. - SimonP 12:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pages for Deletion seems most appropriate, the name Articles for Deletion implies a change of policy: currently Votes for Deletion is the fallback for deletion of pages that don't already have a separate deletion process. I think this fallback is useful. There's no reason not to just redirect articles for deletion to pages for deletion, though. Is there any possibility to make some kind of wildcard or subpage template type redirect? I.E. a redirect that includes the name itself and all non-existent subpages of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/(subpage) and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/(subpage) to Wikipedia:Pages for Deletion/(subpage) without actually creating each page individually? (thousands of redirects would be a waste, as would be the effort to create them) --Mysidia (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's resolve this. I mentioned above the lack of a substantive proposal for handling non-main namespace pages. As per JRM, I've been bold and created such a proposal at Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion. (Please note that I haven't bothered to create any of the relevant nomination templates. It's a proposal.) I've made a start at indicating how such an area would diverge from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in particular in the areas of project and user pages, and incorporating Gtrmp's idea of a longer lag time. See the page for details.

I believe that this addresses the concerns of Radiant!, dmcdevit, Denni, Splash, Android79, and Eugene van der Pijll. The only editor whose concerns it doesn't address is Dragons flight, but that's a simple matter of adding the page to Template:deletiontools and the like in my view. Are any other editors dissatisfied with Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in combination? Uncle G 15:41:50, 2005-08-27 (UTC) I believe the move should be to Wikipedia:Pages for deletion. I don't think it should go to AfD for these reasons:

  • The current scope of VfD does include Wikipedia: and User: pages. There is no exclusion in the policy, therefore it does.
  • There is not consensus to change this.
  • The move should not affect policy.
  • Articles for deletion would exclude Wikipedia:, User:, and Portal: pages.
  • Therefore, AfD would be misleading and unnecessary.

I don't see the need for what would be a very rarely-used non-mainspace articles for deletion, as Uncle G proposes. [[smoddy]] 15:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • To address concerns of those who don't want it named "articles for deletion" because they believe it would mean User and Wikipedia pages are then not deletable at all. Naming it "pages for deletion" is opposed because it's too broad. It's very true the page would see little use, but if we can use it as a lightning rod to thwart pointless consistency discussion like this, I say hooray. Oherwise I wish you good luck on getting agreement on a name. "Articles, User Pages, Wikipedia Pages and Portals for Deletion"? "Mostly Articles for Deletion"? Of course just calling it "Articles for Deletion" and chucking the things that "don't quite fit anywhere else" on it is fine—but you'll never get the Consistency Crowd to agree with that.
  • The red herring here is the insistence on a perfectly correct name, where I would already be satisfied with a not straight-out misleading name like VfD is. JRM · Talk 15:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have the chance to fix something that has been wrong for a long time. I say, take it, and do things properly. I disagree that images, categories, and redirects are pages in the same way as articles, Wikipedia: pages, and User: pages are. The point of deleting the image is to delete the image itself, not the image page. The point of deleting the category is to stop pages being put into it, rather than deleting the category page. Calling a redirect a "page" would be to misenterpret the fact that it's really a technical feature (edit: the same applies to templates—the idea is to delete the instances of the template, rather than the template per se. Even if you don't agree with these definitions, I think it's less confusing to have a generic name with exclusions than a specific name with specific inclusions. Uncle G's page is painful instruction creep. [[smoddy]] 16:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the name Votes for Deletion over Articles for Deletion, actually. I feel that Non-main-namspace Pages for Deletion is silly: let's keep it simple, and keep both main and non-namespace pages handled the same way Images, Categories, Redirects, and Templates are special cases, but pages in different namespaces aren't special cases. --Mysidia (talk)
    • What is it that you like about Votes for deletion? It would be helpful if you explained the reason... :-) [[smoddy]] 16:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Votes for Deletion is more general, just like Pages for Deletion is more general. It is not that I like the name Votes for Deletion -- more like I don't think the name should be Articles for Deletion; because, it means narrowing its scope and creating "* for Deletion" pages which it is not clear that it would be useful to Wikipedia, but rather a case of just creating more work to maintain additional obscure xyz for Deletion areas. --Mysidia (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one considers Images, Templates, and Categories to be pages, then they are also non-main namespace pages, because Images are in the Image namespace, etc. So it seems to me like if we make Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion, then following that logic, IFD, TFD, and CFD should all be merged into it: otherwise I do not see how calling it Non-main namespace avoids the supposed confusion with pages. I don't agree with getting rid of IFD, TFD, etc, and so, I don't like the scheme that uses AFD and NMMPFD. I think VFD → PFD is already a huge change to make, and I feel like the scheme involving AFD and NMMPFD is a much larger change. --Mysidia (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A straw man argument. No-one has suggested "getting rid of IFD, TFD, etc". AFD+NFD is a split in twain of what is currently covered by VFD. It is, as JRM points out, a compromise in order to allow those editors that have expressed concerns (above) about a simple rename to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion on its own, to form a consensus. Uncle G 01:40:54, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

The idea of the NMNPFD is good, only that the name is awful... how about using Miscellaneous for Deletion as it was suggested earlier? That way, AFD and MFD can have different scopes, and PFD can stay as the consolidated parent page (as proposed elsewhere on this page) of AFD, MFD, TFD, IFD, CFD and all other "FD"s that I may have forgotten to list. --Titoxd 23:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • This is a concern about shortcuts. The name of the shortcut is no necessarily tied to the name of the page itself. Witness WP:-). Uncle G 01:40:54, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Name vs. separation

I am ambivalent about much of the issues above. But because there is not yet any consensus for "AFD" or "PFD", it makes sense to me to not yet separate "Articles for deletion" from "Miscellaneous for deletion", for lack of a better name. Maurreen (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly BOLDer plan

Am I being too bold here? It might be nice to consolidate structures while we're at it, with a link structure as follows:

  • Pages for deletion
    • Articles
      • 3rd August
      • 4th August
      • 5th August
    • Redirects to pages
    • Images
    • Categories
    • Templates
      • 1st August
      • 4th August
    • Stub Types
    • Misc. Items

Maybe that's 1 or 2 bridges too far though. Pages for deletion is an ok name for the entire deletion process, but not for a part of it (IMHO).

You might have also noticed that I've snuck in Misc Items as a separate thing. I'm becoming convinced that this might be a really good idea. While Misc Items almost never happen, at the same time they're the most likely to cause all kinds of evil wikinomic stuff to occur. Grepping VfD for these items has always been a pain, and it'd definately be nice to have them on their own page.

Oh yeah, I'd like to start implementing at the soonest, so if we can't get consensus on this right now, I'll just let it be. We can just go with wherever we've gotten so far. Kim Bruning 17:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think consolidating the deletion processes in this way is an excellent idea. I guess the transclusion as at TfD and CfD could continue in addition, if that is preferred. However, I would object to calling the over-arching page "Pages for deletion". Images aren't pages, nor are categories (although they can both be displayed as pages, hence the confusion). I would simply merge this stuff into Wikipedia:Deletion and sub-pages thereof for discussion sub-pages. What do you think? [[smoddy]] 17:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Deletion". Ok, sounds good. Hmm, note we don't need subpages nescesarily, we can have all the pages "out flat", but still link them in a particular hierarchy, that way you can find back what you're looking for quicker. (and you don't have to do as many page moves to get there ;-) ) Kim Bruning 18:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I particularly mind combining thus, but generally there are very different groups of people involved in the various deletion processes, so I don't think many would use the overarching structure. Still, some consistency would be good, and for instance a single policy page and a single GVFD page should apply to all (recently, CFD policy contradicted CSD for instance). Radiant_>|< 22:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rather than one overarching design, I would suggest one page called Wikipedia: Nominations for deletion, simply linking the individual pages (much like Wikipedia:Village pump, with all its links to different areas of concern). More than that would probably be detrimental. As Radiant says - different people lurk around different type of pages, and slightly different rules are also used on each type of page, so aving all the information on one page is likely to just add confusion and make for instruction creep. By the way, is there any reason why Wikipedia: Stub types for deletion has been left off the list? Grutness...wha? 23:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's what Smoddy has in mind,t hen I'm all in favour - but I'd be against having transclusions (or otherwise) of all the different deletion processes on one page. Having to drop to the end of the full list of items on VFD (sorry, PFD) before the start of CFD (or vice versa) would be wearying, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for a "single overarching page with links to the individual discussion areas for each type of deletion". Template:deletiontools already exists. Uncle G 01:43:19, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
    w00t. Someone beat me to it! Excellent, so we can just add Misc to the end of that and we're gold. :-) Kim Bruning 03:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The sound you hear is my palm slapping into my forehead. Of course - the template already does exactly what the page is proposed to do - so why bother? Well spotted, Unc! Grutness...wha? 08:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is going too far. TfD, SfD, and CfD are working just fine, and have clear names. there is no need for such an overarching all inclusive deletion forum, and consensus for such a thing should be far wider than any yet seen on this page, IMO. DES (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One process or two?

One of the key stumbling blocks in the above discussion seems to be that some people want to explicitly seperate Wikipedia/User/etc spaces from the main article space deletion process. Others want to keep them together. I would like to have a straw poll (i.e. not binding and not too evil) on this specific issue to see where people stand because the above is getting hard to follow and fairly convoluted with the issue of various names and abbreviations. Let's decide whether we want one process or two and then work out what to call them.

  • One process. As above, I think that seperating them makes little sense because there are too few of these miscellaneous deletions to warrant a seperate process, and deletions of Wikipedia and similar space material are too big an issue to be hidden on seperate, likely to be little-used process page. Dragons flight 18:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Separate processes. Abuse of the user and policy namespaces are fundamentally issues of behaviour, not content. Since the deletion system is designed to evaluate content, and the dispute resolution system is designed to evaluate behaviour, to me it seems far better to deal with problem user pages and problem policies at RFC or even the Arbcom. - SimonP 19:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Separate. In short, I agree with SimonP. Maurreen (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One because the other page would get little attention (who wants to sort out Userpage spam and POV Wikiprojects?).  Grue  19:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who wants to [...] ? I wouldn't have any problem with doing that sort of work. Junk in non-article-space is still junk. android79 21:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Separate in the sense that there is a feeling that vfd currently gets too much traffic, and fair play, this move would be a negligible removal of traffic, but a removal of traffic none the less, and I agree with SimonP that the processes analyse different things. When we discuss articles, we are arguing whether or not such an article belongs in an encyclopedia, basically, whereas with the namespaces it is more tidying up and behind the scenes work, as this stuff is not seen by the readership of wikipedia, but only the editors. I also don't buy the idea they will be hidden on a separate, little-used process page. Whom are they hidden from? Anyone with interest in the pages listed will be watching them, I would imagine, and if there are big issues involved it won't be a burden to watch this little used page for when someone decides to list the village pump on there, for arguments sake. However, I'm not going to cry if it goes the other way, I just feel it would help sharpen up the debate on whatever votes for deletion becomes. Steve block talk 20:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate. Concur with SimonP. android79 21:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Separate. I agree with Steve block. It means adding just one page to the watchlist, which translates to two clicks of the mouse. Besides, these pages won't be abandoned if there's a heated discussion about a page, or an utter trainwreck like the recent Wikipedians for Decency. --Titoxd 21:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single because the other process would become a backwater. Radiant_>|< 22:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Very well, I am convinced. Separate. Radiant_>|< 16:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Single. We have so many deletion backwaters as it is, I don't see the need to create another. I'm unclear on what people think it would achieve that could not be achieved with leaving it 'merged'. -Splash 22:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate Some people care more about unusual happenings than usual ones, and this makes them easier to find. Also, per Steve block. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single. This is aimed at fixing a problem that doesn't exist. A page with a nomination a week at most would be spectacularly pointless. Deletion page creep? [[smoddy]] 23:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence in front of us is that it will have more than a nomination a week. See what is actually there on the proposal, covering the past 5 days alone. Uncle G 01:15:08, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
  • One Process -- Let's keep just one process for now. It's not clear how adding a new one will help be of any help. Splitting would not help with the Vfd load, because Wikipedia namespace articles are just not often deleted, it would just create more load (need someone to maintain the pages). --Mysidia (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth noting that the solutions to problem pages in the user and project namespace are often different to the solutions to problem pages in the main namespace. Transwikification is almost never a viable option for user and project pages, for example. The considerations prior to nomination differ, too. (We separate the deletion of redirects off from the deletion of ordinary articles for that very reason.) There is a distinction here. Uncle G 01:15:08, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
  • Separate - Even a slight reduction in the VfD load would be welcome, and maintenance shouldn't be a problem/ I'd estimate we get 5-10 of these items per week on average (in the last week there have been five items in Wikispace - one of them multiple pages - plus two more items in article space which should have been in wikispace). Also, these items tend to have longer discussions than many simple article VfD nominations (many of you will remember the recent VfD nom on the "WikiProject for Decency" or whatever it was called). If 2-3 people, working on an ad hoc basis, can keep SfD under control, then MfD should be no problem, especially when you consider that SfD averages 2-3 items per day, and often requires emptying of heavily-used categories of changing of heavily-used templates. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps your decisions in this poll, please note two things:
    1. I've just discovered the existence of Wikipedia:Portals for deletion. I take that to be an implicit "separate" vote in this straw poll from its creator, FayssalF (talk · contribs), although I don't think that any other editor supports such a fine granularity or any granularity finer than a simple "main namespace versus all of the other namespaces (except images, templates, and categories)" dichotomy.
    2. I've listed all of the existing deletion discussions of non-main namespaces pages, that I could find listed on VFD from 2005-08-22 onwards, on Wikipedia:non-main namespace pages for deletion. This should give you an idea of the past few days' traffic level for a separate process.
  • For myself, I'm convinced that the arguments that no-one will frequent Wikipedia:non-main namespace pages for deletion and that it will become a "backwater" are ill-founded. They seem to be based upon two suppositions:
    1. that people aren't aware of the page now — This is a situation easily remedied by announcing its existence, if we decide to go down that path, and modifying the various policy and other pages listed in the to-do list above. It is not demonstrably a problem for the future, and hence not a reason to not do this.
    2. that no-one will care about the deletion of pages in the User: and Wikipedia: namespace — This is disproven by the evidence of history. Consider the huge amounts of attention garnered by the following discussions, all of which would have been within the remit of a proposed separate process had it existed at the time:
  • The only argument against separation with any foundation is the one brought up by Mysidia: that it's more maintenance work for administrators. However, it's not more work in terms of discussion closures. The discussions have to be closed wherever they are held. It's more work in terms of shuffling an extra set of per-day pages around. However, please note that for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion such shuffling is already performed automatically, by 'bots. There is no reason that 'bots cannot shoulder the burden of another set of per-day page shuffles. My original position was to favour a single process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. However, editors have favoured that that name on the explicit condition that there be a second, separate, process. Given that separating the processes resolves the issues that editors have and allows a consensus to form and progress to be made, I thus favour two separate processes (but no finer granularity than that) as a compromise. Uncle G 01:15:08, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
    • Very well laid out. I would suggest that - if we go with the idea of "Miscellaneous" rather than "Non-main namespace" then it could include those items which are currently erroneously in the main namespace and which should - if anywhere - be in the wikispace. There have been a handful of them in the past week, too: The Wikipedia Hall of Shame is one such. I also note that in the last 12 hours four more non-article space items have appeared on VfD! Was it something we said? Grutness...wha? 09:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seperate processes as per Steve block & Uncle G. DES (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One process please. WP:TfD and WP:CfD contain abundant examples of how the deletion process becomes warped when it is moved to an obscure corner. How many people will actually watch Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion? Damned few, I'll wager. -- Visviva 16:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate. I'm completely in favor of separating actual article inclusion debates from meta-project inclusion debates. -Sean Curtin 23:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seperate. The more distributed the process is the better. My guess is Wikipedia will continue to have scaling problems unless it continues to decentralize. Paul August ☎ 05:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Single deletion process, agree with smoddy. Creating a new deletion process seems like needless instruction creep that won't produce any obvious benefit. 5-10 nominations a week represents a miniscule portion of VFD. However, I agree with SimonP that problem user pages and Wikipedia space pages are often better handled at RFC than at VFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
  • Note that WP:NFD is now up and running. --Titoxd 05:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separate

I don't mind straw polling for a while longer, but most people seem to prefer a separate process for non-mainspace-stuff. And of course SimonP and Steve Block make good points that different criteria apply. So supposing we get consensus for that, how would we call it? Also, regarding its function, my first thought would be to model it after WP:TFD (that is, no subpages). It would otherwise use the same discussion format and "votes" etc, and would apply to all namespaces not covered by another process (i.e. Wikipedia/Help/Portal/User and any new ones, with the added notice that we should be very lenient about userspaces). Of course that's assumption on my part, any comments or objections? Radiant_>|< 23:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Miscellaneous for Deletion should be ok. After all, "Miscellaneous" says that anything that doesn't fit elsewhere belongs there, and MFD sounds better than NMNPFD (its current name). I would say that it would be better for it to have subpages, like VFD has now, because discussions on the Wikipedia namespace can get quite long, and the page will need to be purged every once in a while. --Titoxd 23:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I suggest Wikipedia: Miscellaneous items for deletion, still with WP:MFD as the shortcut? As for subpages, it's a horses for courses thing. TFD and SFD work fine without them, but they've been a godsend for CFD and I doubt that VFD could operate properly without them - for reasons of both page load and edit conflict. No reason why each type of deletion process shouldn't vary in that one respect. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Radiant -- I think there is too little for subpages. Maurreen (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion about whether to have sub-pages is moot. Wikipedia:non-main namespace pages for deletion already has per-day and per-nomination sub-pages. Further to that, there are good reasons for having sub-pages. First: If you want me to maintain the list of current discussions with a 'bot, I require sub-pages for the per-day listings at least, for 'bot safety. (I don't speak for other 'bot writers, though.) Second: Migration from VFD to NFD is easier with sub-pages. If we decide to be bold and move the discussions over, it is a simple matter to rename the existing discussion sub-pages of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to be sub-pages of Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion instead, replacing the example sub-pages that I have put in place.

    What the shortcut should be is independent of what the page name itself is. Witness WP:VAIN, WP:MUSIC, and WP:-). I've changed the proposed shortcut (and nomination template names) to NFD, per Paul August above. Uncle G 01:56:21, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

    • Well, at least it has come down to a matter of semantics, which means that the most controversial part is over. Personally, I like "Miscellaneous for Deletion", because it's shorter, but I'm not going to make a huge deal out of it. Proceed accordingly. --Titoxd 02:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's not exactly moot. VFD uses subpages per day and per article, because of high throughput. CFD uses subpages per day only, because of medium throughput. TFD, RFD and VFU use no subpages, because of low throughput. I don't particularly mind whichever way it goes, but it seems to me that MFD would have low throughput. Hence, KISS. Radiant_>|< 08:34, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • The other benefit of a separate subpage per article is that it is easier to archive the discussion and, in situations where you are worried that a vandal may have tampered with the opinions expressed in the original discussion, easier to verify the authenticity of the archived opinions. While these miscellaneous decisions should be low to medium throughput, they do tend to be highly controversial discussions. I believe there will continue to be value in preserving them and that we can most effectively preserve them using the sub-pages. Rossami (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, I strongly support the use of subpages, both on WP:NfD (if it must exist) and for that matter on other deletion processes. Deletion sorting, which allows different communities to track deletion proposals of interest, is virtually impossible without subpages. For instance, the proposed deletion of Wikipedia:Wikiportals/Sweden was transcluded on Sweden-related deletions, a page which has already attracted some community attention. -- Visviva 00:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/WP:NMNPFD sounds a bit long. Perhaps something like Miscellaneous or Others would be a better idea, unless a more specific name can be found (Non-Articles/NAFD?) Note that these names technically include templates and categories etc., I believe that's the current plan? P.S. Oh, I see it's WP:NFD already, but its expansion is still rather long. --IByte 22:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Non-main namespace pages for deletion -- maybe not yet, but soon. -- Visviva 00:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Miscellaneous items for deletion or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion are a little easier to remember and abbreviate than the current name. -Sean Curtin 00:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming VfU

I strongly support renaming VfU, but it should become simply Wikipedia:Undeletion, WP:U for short. (These are presently redirects to Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops; which can be moved to Wikipedia: Undeletion for sysops; WP:US. These names are straightforward, and avoid confusion with Wikipedia:Deletion reform Septentrionalis 20:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One at a time. Let's worry about AFD for now. --Titoxd 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot change over

I plan to change the code in VFD Bot so that the new pages will begin starting 1 September 2005 (UTC). VFD Bot will begin editing and creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpages starting that day. If you have any objections, please list them immediately on my talk page. I will forego any changes if an object is raised. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More consistency

The discussion over naming consistency has reminded me of something else that has been bugging me for a while. Why is it that VfD, IfD, and RfD have new entries listed at the bottom, while CfD and TfD have new ones listed at the top? We are all quite used to it, but it has to be confusing for newcomers. - SimonP 18:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Good point. Also note that WP:RFA and WP:RFAr list things on top. Not sure about WP:FAC. Consistency is good. I don't have a particular preference about this one. Radiant_>|< 23:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • SfD and FAC also list at the top. Oddly, though I think overall top-listing is the better system, it might not work so well with VFD, simply because of the large number of items - but that may be simply a gut feeling rather than having any sound foundation. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The major advantage of top listing is that you don't need to wait for the entire page to load and scroll all the way to the end to read the newest entries. To me this makes VfD one of the best candidates for top listing, because of its size. - SimonP 02:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • So then is there anything good about bottom listing? Dmcdevit·t 02:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • It's the usual way chronological data is presented; see for instance all the talk pages. People tend to add information to the bottom of lists rather than the top (probably due to the fact that on paper this is the only real way to do it). Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
            • I strongly support top listing, as per SimonP. Denni☯ 00:19, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Failure to close VfDs properly

Some admins seem to be ignoring or twisting the clear consensus expressed in Vfd's, For example, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sea anenomes, where there were 10 votes for Redirect and one for delete, none for keep. But the result was reported as The result of the debate was keep and of course feel free to redirect. --Tony Sidaway. IMO this is ignoring the cleqar consensus, and disrespecting the people who mposted comments. It is arguably also WP:POINT. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion says: the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus: Keep; Delete; Cleanup or BJAODN; Merge and/or redirect; Transwiki. It seems to me that an admin not willing to accept a consensus for any of those outcomes should not be closing VfDs. I will admint that a merge of a large articel can be a tricky and complex bit of work, but the admin could certianly put one of the merge templates on the relevant article along with a note about the VfD result. But a redir is easy for the closing admin to do. True, it doesn't require admin powers. Neither does a keep. But if an admin undertakes to close a VfD with a clear consensus to redir, then i think reporting the result as "redirect" and doing the redir are part of the admin's duties. I think that in the course of the rename and reconstruction of the VfD page, we should make this very clear in the rewritten instructions. DES (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • An alternate idea for redirects is to encourage those who want the page to be a redirect to replace the content with a redirect while it is on VFD, which people seem currently hesitant to do. I agree that in votes that close as a consensus to merge, the admin should at least note on the talk page that this consensus existed, or add a merge tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:37, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
    • Whoa! User:Thatdog is entirely wrong, and it's that kind of language that has been cowing people who would nominate to VfD. List something on VfD if you believe that it fails the deletion guidelines. If you believe that it can be redirected, you're free to do so, but I think it's laudable when someone says to herself, "This could be redirected, but, for all I know, there are other people who think that the contents really need to be merged, and other people who might have good reasons against a redirect at this name, so I'll put it on VfD to get a feel for the community's opinion." I don't mean to be harsh, but let's extend some of that mythical good faith to VfD nominators, too. As for redirecting while on VfD, it's not quite as bad as Kim's XD, but it's along the same lines: it makes any voter go to the history to see what shape the article was in, and it leads to a false sense among voters that "this has already been taken care of, so I don't need to get involved." It looks final. Again, sorry if I seem to be harsh, but there are good reasons for the way things have been. Geogre 12:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't get me wrong, I think getting the community's input on redirects and mergers is very important. However, one should make an attempt to discuss such things on the talk pages of the related articles and use the proposed merge and related templates to bring editors into the discussion. VfD is votes for deletion, not a general forum for discussing articles that don't need deletion. Thatdog 02:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I think you are saying is that you want to expand the duties of the person closing the vfd discussion. Right now, Wikipedia:Deletion process addresses only three results: delete, keep or transwiki. It clearly states that "merge" and "redirect" are variants of "keep." If the consensus is transwiki, and the editor does not want to complete the transwiki process immediately, he or she is directed to add an appropriate tag. If your proposal were just that an editor should add a {{merge}} or {{cleanup}} tag when that is the clear consensus, that would seem like a sensible proposal. However, to the extent that you are suggesting that the editor who is closing the discussion must complete the "merge" or "cleanup" duties himself or herself, that seems like a lot to ask in many cases. DS1953 04:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, that's exactly the opposite of what DES said. He said "a merge of a large articel can be a tricky and complex bit of work, but the admin could certianly put one of the merge templates on the relevant article along with a note about the VfD result", but "an admin undertakes to close a VfD with a clear consensus to redir, then i think reporting the result as "redirect" and doing the redir are part of the admin's duties". And WP:GVFD addresses all the different vote types. -Splash 05:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. All I am saying is that an admin ought to report "Merge", "Redirect", "cleanup", or "transwiki" as results when there is a clear consensus for one of these. A redir the admin ought to do, as it is simple. A merge the admin is free to do, or else to merely tag the article for merging, with a note on the talk page that the merge was the consensus of a VfD discussion. Similarly, the admin can either do a transwiki, or tag the article and put a note about the Vfd result on the talk page. The same applies to a Cleanup result. Note that Wikipedia:Deletion process does not seem fully consistant with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The latter lsits five possible outcomes, not two. DES (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a long precedent for VFDs having an outcome different from keep or delete. Thus anybody who claims that VFD must be binary is de facto overridden. The fact that a merge can be done without resorting to VFD does not imply that VFD can never have an outcome to merge. If a VFD has no keep votes at all, it is strange to close it as a keep - moreso if the admin decides then to merge it anyway. Radiant_>|< 08:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Radiant! is right. What's more is that VfD not only has precedent, it was procedure for people who closed VfD's to have to work their rear ends off. The reason few people did it was not fear of controversial results, but rather a conscientious work ethic. Closing VfD's meant doing the merges, doing the transwikying, and, often, trying to address the issues raised by a VfD on a troublesome keep. It also meant resubmission on things that didn't get votes at all, opening Requests for Comment on disputed articles, etc. It was not a gleeful and illicit way of saying, "Nyah, nyah, you didn't get 10 unanimous delete votes, so I'm taking the tag off." That part is new. Oh, and we didn't write a law stating this, as we used to believe that it was bad to write a law over every action possible, and we used to believe that no admin would go to work on VfD unless they knew what was involved. That, apparently, is the change. Geogre 12:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I agree that the result of a VfD discussion can be a consensus for something other than a pure "keep" or "delete", but I think there is ambiguity about what other consensus means. It is fairly clear that "transwiki" is interpreted to mean "delete from the article namespace and transwiki". Similarly, I think people would agree that "BJAODN" means to delete the article from the article namespace. Even "merge" is probably understood to mean to keep all relevant content but merge the content into another article and, in most cses at least, leave a redirect. With a vote of "redirect", however, I believe some people view redirect as a vote to "delete the current article and redirect the page to a better article" while many others (including me, in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary) assume it means "merge any salvagable content to the better article and redirect".
Also, I haven't seen anyone ever say "Nyah, nyah, you didn't get 10 unanimous delete votes, so I'm taking the tag off." If that it supposed to be a comment about Tony extending the process on a couple of recent VfD discussions where there were only a few delete votes and no keep votes, then while I disagree with Tony's conclusion, he did not "take the tag off" but simply concluded that two votes was not a strong consensus. Personally, I read almost every VfD nomination and don't bother to vote delete on most of the ones I consider "no-brainers" (which are most of the nominations). If dozens of editors have looked at a nomination and the result is only two deletes but no keeps, I think that means no one wants to keep it. But that is my opinion. I think we all acknowledge that there is a lot of subjectivity in this process and we should assume good faith. -- DS1953 14:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony's interpretation of "redirect as a form of keep" is, in my opinion and experience, the interpretation that is most supported by our policy and precedent. Someone voting "redirect" could mean "turn this article into a redirect but there is no need to delete the history" (and, indeed, one person in this particular debate took the time to explicitly say so). An unadorned "redirect" opinion could also mean "the content is so bad or offensive that it must be deleted from history but then replace the article with a redirect" (and in other debates, we do sometimes see votes of "delete then redirect"). Absent clear guidance from the user, the closing admin's only safe interpretation of a simple "redirect" opinion is to assume that the user meant "redirect but keep the history". Once you've decided to keep the article's history, the VfD process is done. Everything else can be accomplished by any reader/editor who was involved in the discussion or has an interest in the article. Note that closing a decision as a "keep" does not mean "keep in this exact form". Once the VfD discussion is closed, normal editing resumes. While you might think that a VfD closer should carry out all those extra steps, I do not think that it is a reasonable expectation to require them to do so. Rossami (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at the very least, it is reasonable to require a closer to report the result as "redirect" not as "keep" in a case where there are 10 votes to redir and none to keep. A consensus to redir is not the same as a consensus to keep. Yes it says that (or at least may well say that) the article history should not or need not be deleted, and that the title should not become a redlink. But it also says that there is consensus that the article should not continue to maintian a separate exiatance. From the PoV of the ordinary user, and to some extent of the ordinary editor, converting an article to a redir effectively deletes it. What is more, a consensus to redir (as opposed to "merge" or "merge and redir") implies that the current content has little or no value and need not be merged, it may be acceptable to have it in the history, but it is not wanted in the ordinanry article space. It is true that any editor can do a merge or a redir without a VfD discussion, or indeed any discussion at all, and that either can always be reverted. But when a discussion comes to the clear consensus that a redir is proper, then reverting that change would be going against consensus, and would need justification, preferably in advance. As I said above, a merge can be a lot of work, and may take knowledge of the subject area -- I don't think it fair to require the closer to undertake this. But a redir is less work that the note on a talk page normally left after a VfD not resulting in a delete, and it seems to me reasonable to expect the closer to do this so that things are not left in a state contrary to the expresed consensus for no good reason. DES (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Rossami, and would counsel all against attempts to personalize this issue. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, at least, am not currently trying to personalize this issue. i think the approach you and Rossami have stated in this section is misguided, and i object to it in practice. But I would objct just as much whoever might be doing it, and I assume good faith and don't think you are taking the position you are becauase of some massive evil agenda(tm). I want the policy clarifed. I think that what I have said above more accurately reflects current policy than your position. If it doesn't than i think the policy should be changed so that it does. I am seeking general consensus for this, not attempting to lead a lynch mob. DES (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's what we do in practice. I think it's all we can do. For a very long time indeed (I checked) we've had "redirect" closes being interpreted unambiguously as "edit the article to replace the current contents with a redirect", and this is what the guide to VfD said should happen. As Rossami has said people who want something else to happen can say so--appeals to the purported ignorance of the average user aren't material, if the current state of affairs is that a person can vote either "redirect" or "delete and redirect" then how can it be said that there exists any kind of problem? --Tony SidawayTalk 04:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't what was done in the case above. there were 10 votes for redirect, 1 vote for delete, no votes for keep. It wasn't closed as "redirect" and the article wasn't "edited to replace the current contents with a redirect", at least not by the closer. The closer closed it as "keep" (a result for which there were 0 votes), and did not perform the redir, nor indicate on the relevsnt talk page that a redir had been determiend by consensus in a VfD discussiuon. I wasn't arguing for a "delete and redir" that wiped out the history, at least not in this case. just that 10R 1D 0K be closed as R, not K. DES (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But "keep" and "redirect" are synonymous. Any article that is kept can be redirected by any user; any article that is redirected can be reinstated as a complete article. Eugene van der Pijll 07:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem here? Tony Sidaway gave the green light to convert the article to a redirect, so isn't it much easier to just make the redirect and move on? There are several valid reasons why Tony may have hesitated in doing so himself. In practice, there have been times where I have hesitated doing so as well. For example, if there is no clear agreement as to where to redirect (such as this debate), or if there are some wishes to merge certain parts of the content (such as in the disputed debate), I can well understand a slight hesitation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main problem is that Tony is perceived by several people as not following consensus when closing VFDs, and that he never actually responds to that issue (except by pointing at a policy that states he may use his discretion, which is beside the point - admins should always be willing to listen to criticism). It is always easy to point to a generic case where the behavior may be appropriate - but that is irrelevant if in the specific case (e.g. the 10R/1D/0K mentioned above) it was not.
  • It boils down to two issues: first, is VFD supposed to be binary keep-or-delete (as stated in the old deletion policy) or can it have other results such as merge, transwiki or redirect (as stated at the top of VFD, and firmly established by precedent). The former sounds more bureaucratic, the latter sounds more consensual.
  • Second, does VFD need a quorum policy? Tony has recently been relisting many VFD debates with fewer than five votes even if there was clearly a consensus among the votes (except if there was a consensus to keep, which strikes me as inconsistent behavior). This relisting has already been subject of much criticism, and sounds like an unilateral attempt to set quorum. Radiant_>|< 08:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Alright, to answer the last two questions I would say: VFD is a discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted, and the administrerial decision is a binary "keep" or "delete" (with the possible exception of the "transwiki" vote). In practice however, there are often keep-type votes of merge/redirect/disambig or delete-type votes of BJAODN or "delete, then redirect", and when there are such votes, I often use my discretion and make an editorial decision to go ahead and do this. Here the main factor is not the number of such votes, but the reasons presented for them, and the viability of actually carrying it out. Sometimes, I have to exercise my discretion and do something a bit different from what was requested (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cassandra Trelawney is one example where I felt that I couldn't merge with the suggested article.) On the quorum issue, there is no official policy on it and therefore, VFD closers are again left to their own devices of working out what constitutes a "quorum" for them. In my view, a single person cannot constitute a "consensus". Consensus implies agreement, and if there is only one participant, who is there to agree with? I personally think it is OK to have only two votes, including the nominator. If there is only a nomination however, I close the debate as a "no votes", then immediately resubmit it. Nonetheless, I can understand that other VFD closers will be uncomfortable with closing debates with only two votes, and an irksome issue is if we have three votes: the nomination, a delete vote, and a keep vote. Both of these situations are ones in which I can understand, and defend, a decision to resubmit it to the current VFD list, even though I would handle such a situation differently. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, given those comments, the issue really becomes this: do we want to defend every admin's right to use his discretion as he sees fit, or do we want closing to be reasonably consistent and not so much depending on which admin does the closing? If an admin is doing something that most other admins would have done differently, does that not suggest that said admin may be doing something that isn't consensual? Radiant_>|< 09:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
        • Given that the only "judges" on Wikipedia are the members of the arbcom, we do need to rely on the administrator using his or her discretion to do good. There are processes in place to dispute the result of a VFD debate, VFU for disputed "delete" results, a second VFD debate for disputed "keep" results. Usually, if we stick to those prcesses, there will be no need to overturn debates. A policy or guideline on the issues of quorum (how many should vote?) and on conflict of interest (Don't close debates where you have participated) is lacking, and could be useful if there turns out to be even more conflict on the issue. Using the method of successive approximations, as a first iteration, I would say that VFD debates should never be unilaterally overturned, and then work backwards from there. In particular:
        • The original closer may decide to reverse the decision if he discovers that he or she blundered in some way. For example if a vandal changed all the "delete" votes to "keep" votes just before the debate was closed and the closer failed to notice it, the best course of action would perhaps be to contact the original closer, and ask him or her to reverse the decision.
        • If the closer was a participant in the VFD debate, I can see some conflict of interest issues. Might justify an overturn.
        • Also, if the closer of a second VFD debate, also was the closer or a particpant of an earlier VFD debate, some conflict of interest issues may crop up.
        • The closer was a non-administrator (already covered in the Wikipedia:Deletion process), or the debate was closed out of process and prematurely.
        These are my views of how things ought to be handled in the absence of a policy or guideline. I don't think that debates should be overturned with the reason "Hey, there were 5 delete votes and only two keep votes!" Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the above, my confidence about the correctness of leaving these decisions to administrator discretion is somewhat reinforced. In particular, relisting a deletion discussion can never be the wrong thing to do. It moves the discussion into further prominence, permitting more people to consider the issues, and there is nothing about the relisting that stops another administrator deciding that the discussion can be closed. A relisting is a statement, in effect "I think this deletion listing has not been discussed enough." A sysop can never be compelled to close a particular listing, and if the listing has few votes and little discussion it makes sense not to just skip over it but to relist. Recent relistings have attracted some extreme reactions, but I suspect this was more a display of personal picque than a mature reaction to an attempt to bring discussions back to prominence.
  • I think it is usually the right thing to do. It would be wrong of course to relist discussions that have substantial amounts of exposure, but a discussion with only three votes plus the nominator suggests to me one that may not have had enough attention for a consensus to be determined.
  • It's wrong to call this a quorum--nothing about relisting prevents the article being closed. Since I've done this I have had one or two favorable comments and note that others have followed suit.
  • In view of one recent "keep" close by a sysop who cast the only keep vote, I certainly think that we should consider turning the unwritten rule, that sysops don't close discussions that they participated in, into something more explicit. Although I'd prefer strong policy on this I will curb my instincts and adopt a more parsimonious stance. A guideline, perhaps, so that sysops can be made aware of best practice. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As usual, you are misinterpreting the situation. Other people relist discussions because they have few votes and no consensus. You, on the other hand, relist discussions that have few votes even if all the votes are to delete. That is entirely wrong. Radiant_>|< 10:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't wrong and I'm not interpreting. If I don't think there is consensus, then all that relisting does is attract attention to the discussion. This is a good thing. It doesn't stop a more bold sysop closing the thing if he wants to, and in the meantime more eyes see the discussion and more opinions may be added. This is also a good thing. I don't think you'll find a single regular VfD closer who would say that this is the wrong thing to do if there doesn't seem to have been much of a discussion. It's better than leaving the discussion festering in a day log linked only from "/Old". --Tony SidawayTalk 03:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So now you start changing other people's comments because you don't like them. That is generally considered vandalism. The problem isn't in relisting things that have no consensus. The problem is that you are either very bad at seeing where consensus lies, or you are deliberately doing it wrong. If a VFD vote has four votes to delete and no other votes, then that is an obvious consensus. Yet you relist it anyway. I don't think you'll find a single regular VfD closer (other than yourself) who would say that this is the right thing to do. Radiant_>|< 08:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Unify for Simplicity, and more consistency?

Consider how much these changes effect the difficulty of nominating a text page for deletion that needs to be removed. Now nominators will have to understand that Wikipedia: and other namespaces, that these pages are somehow special (other than being set aside from the main space), that the procedure for nominating is different, and has its own set of templates and different set of instructions to use.

This potentially creates a procedural obstacle to nominating things for deletion.

Users will have to understand these exceptions to the normal nomination procedure for articles to respect a minority of cases, this is a mess. So why not use the same procedure for everything.. so that it looks mostly the same to the user, i.e. no matter what kind of thing is being nominated for deletion steps I and II are the same -- always use a subpage, since it works well -- and make the primary distinction which log a debate is listed in?.

Everything being a subpage of the same area. I.E. Pages for Deletion would be used for Images, Templates, etc. But the discussion page for deleting Image:Blah would appear at Wikipedia:Pages_for_Deletion/Image:Blah. (And it is the Image:* that distinguishes it). The nominator would then transclude the subpage in a Wikipedia:Pages_for_Deletion/Log/Image/day, by picking from a menu (in Step III) of "what kind of thing" is being nominated for deletion. And depending on how much traffic an area gets, the main Images for Deletion, templates for deletion, etc pages, would transclude or link recent days.

This would also be more versatile in that it would allow areas that get a lot of traffic to be further subdivided, i.e. if many biographies are being nominated, then an appropriate option could be added for biographies to Step III for the deletion menu, and they could be split to their own log. --Mysidia (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The other deletion process pages as a rule don't use subpages, and creating subpages for all the hundreds of uncontested image deletions seems like a stretch. Better, I think, not to touch IFD, CFD, and TFD, all of which appear to be working fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:53, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
  • I agree with Christopher Parham, there is no reason to change IFD, CFD, and TFD. IFd has special rules and processes because image deletion can't be undone; TfD and CfD both have procedures which are rather different from those on the current VfD because of their specialized subject matter. Also, SfD has a recently created and specialized process, because stubs typically conssit of both a template and a category. Leave all of these unchanged, i suggest. DES (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • VFD is already overloaded, there is no need to add more things to it even more. Besides, as DES has correctly pointed out, there are procedural differences between the various processes. --Titoxd 23:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/proposal on all the debates over name and inclusion

I haven't had chance to read all of the discussions in all of the many places they seem to be happening, so this is a sort of meta-comment on all of them. Imho Vfd should be renamed "articles for deletion". We should direct new users to a unified introduction page (Wikipedia:Deletion process perhaps) that explains that different types of page are dealth with differently and note where each is discussed:

What do you want to nominate for deletion?

I know this creates a new process, but PfD will be a slow moving, catchall place that will stop debates about user: and wikipedia: namespace pages getting drowned out by the (normally inaccurate) NOOB (none of our business) votes that some VfDs in this namespace currently attract. Any user namespace page nominated for deletion must be accompanied by a note on the user talk: page of the user concerned, e.g. if User Thryduulf/Geonamesongs was nominated for deletion, the nominator must note this on User talk:Thryduulf. Thryduulf 09:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the introduction page you want is Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not the deletion process which deals almost solely with the mechanics of closing a deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The catch-all process you refer to can now be found at WP:NFD --Titoxd 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will an admin please harmonise the templates? They've pointed to votes, pages and articles in the last few days. Now they point at votes again, but the pages are title articles — but only after a redirect. All the changes cause problem when a newbie VfDer doesn't subst: the template, and their link gets broken. If you are going to conduct a wheel war, please do it where the rest of us don't have to clean up. -Splash 00:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. I am actively campaigning to stop this absurdity. Does anyone realise just how many pages have been placed under the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion namespace? Now if I want to check to see if an article has been on VfD, I must check two spots. If the article has been up for deletion, we'll possibly have two VfDs. This confusion has already made me look like a fool on Gordon Cheng. I'm not a happy camper and I have rolled back. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, people realize that, and yes, the intent is to have one 'namespace'. Uncle G's bot is doing all the renaming work quickly and painlessly. There is the temporary inconvenience of having to check two spots but that shouldn't take long. Radiant_>|< 10:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Closing an old page?

Could an admin with a minute to spare have a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hacked? I've just stumbled across it - it's not linked from any VfD pages. First listed on the 11th - presumably it fell by the wayside in a cleanup without being dealt with. It looks like it reached consensus to delete even without my voting, so probably needs deleted and closed.

Thanks. Shimgray 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decidedly deleted. [[smoddy]] 23:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly. Wonder how many more of these are languishing out there? Shimgray 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where we are

All right, part of the changeover has been completed. WP:NFD is now active (and a discussion about its name is going on in its talk page), so I assume that the move to WP:AFD can now proceed. However, there's a revert war currently underway at {{Vfd}}. There's a citing of "lack of consensus" but reading all the discussion above, I don't see any objections besides "It's a lot of work", "You're going to mess up the page for a while" and "I don't care." Are there any objections to the move in substance, that haven't been addressed? --Titoxd 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You really should consider having a vote on this. Besides that though there is no reason to change links in the VFD template until the move is COMPLETELY FINISHED, otherwise it confuses people and messes up links (even I have had to duplicate some of my VfDs already). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Votes are evil, no? There's nothing anywhere rainsing serious objections to the new names, either. -Splash 19:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Votes are evil. And yes there is nobody raising serious objections so far. But we have only been discussing this for a few days. Threre are probably hundreds of serious and respected editors who haven't even heard of this yet! As for my ideas on how to ensure that we have a consensus see my suggestion above #Discussion on building a consensus. As for the need to develop a consensus see my remarks below #We are pissing people off. Paul August ☎ 19:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • "There are probably hundreds of serious and respected editors who haven't even heard of this yet!"—true, but I cannot imagine a VFD regular (which is the group most affected by this) who hasn't heard of this. --Titoxd 22:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I had this great response but then Paul responded with an even better one.... so yeah what Paul said Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rather suspect there'd have been a lot less pissing off if people hadn't started reverting the templates all over the place. And yes, those being bold should have taken a grace period and given better notice. But the fact is now that things are progressing and the world isn't collapsing and it's only a name. If we were to simply let it go, and quit fighting over the templates, in a few days time it will all be irrelevant. -Splash 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, no the problem was exactly the reverse - people kept pointing the vfd template to point to pages for deletion and old all old VfDs wern't pointing there yet - so everyone had to duplicate the things so that people could vote from the article. So in this case the reverters were 100% correct in what they were doing. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they weren't. They hadn't read the talk page, where the problems that had arisen, caused by the initial change to the template, had been discussed, and a temporary compromise wording including both links had been settled upon to make the best of the situation. Uncle G 18:27:00, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was the problem, "the initial change to the template". There shouldn't have been one, as people should have waited until the move was complete. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are pissing people off!

Quoting myself from template talk:Vfd "I am all for the name change, but this process is going too fast! causing problems and pissing off editors, and creating ill-will. We need to have some perspective. VfD is one of the most central and emotional areas of Wikipedia. We need to proceed with care! It is not enough to do the right thing, we should also do it in the right way." IMHO, we should decide what to do first before doing it. Paul August ☎ 19:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good change. So there :p Dan100 (Talk) 15:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Voting on making sure vfd isn't voting?

Err, yeah, right, whatever. Philip Baird Shearer, I'm going to assume you had a massive brainfart there for a second, but seriously: Do Not Do That Again. I'm serious. I'm very angry at you. Kim Bruning 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To people caught in the large RV. Sorry about that, please check to see if you've been affected, and please fix it if I've caused any discussion to accidentally vanish :-/ Kim Bruning 01:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't you restore all the comments you deleted? Kim, I respect you (and am glad you didn't just delete this page this time) and may even agree with you, but can't you use discussion first? Did you have to just revert? And more importantly, you must tone down the language! I know you know about WP:CIV, and calling people idiots does nothing for our encycolpedia. (You're starting to remind me of Ed, and not in a good way.) Dmcdevit·t 02:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Sowwy. I'm getting a little tired of people pushing votes all the time, especially in places where folks are discussing getting rid of them. I guess I'm really letting it get to me :-/ Once upon a time on my RfA, someone went like "I wonder if Kim will still be such a nice person in 1 years time, or if adminship will have corrupted him." I'm afraid I know the answer :-( Kim Bruning 02:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Take a 2-day wikibreak. I've blocked your account for that time so you can do that. :P As if I could... --Titoxd 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HEY! The vote is still there! #$*#($*(*$! :-( Kim Bruning 02:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Damn! I removed it. I sat here and deleted it. Grrrr. I'll do it again. -Splash 02:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. -Splash 03:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Phew. Thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 03:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion (talk · contribs) voted after Splash cleaned it up. Probably an edit conflict. --Titoxd 03:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like what happened is that Splash reverted his own deletion of it to go back and save the comments [2], I (unknowingly) voted during that brief period [3], Splash reinstated the votes again [4], and then accidently reverted himself [5]. I did wonder about the oddness of voting on a proposal to reduce the perception that Wikipedia relies on vote totals, but decided that since the idea was to sort out the opinions, I might as well put mine there instead of down below. Aquillion 23:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it, but blocked it off rather appropriately with something that seemed to fit this page :) I hope we can turn off the election without losing the comments contained in it is all. Dmcdevit·t 04:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Such an elegant turn of phrase Kim Bruning! I am not surprised that people who participate in editing this page, so totally ignore Wikipedia guidelines, it is par for the course at VFD. If a WP:RM request to move this page has been requested. The the WP:RM guidelines should be followed. To say that there is a clear consensus on this page is odd as even if there is a consensus the way the discussion has developed it is far from clear. There are several people who are objecting to the move and it is not clear what, if the move is to take place, the new name should be. If the move is to take place it should be done with a clear consensus and a clear listing of opinions is the best way to do it. I do not see what the hast has to be when a delay of a few days would show how large a consensus there is for a move. Philip Baird Shearer 08:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is going on here? I see the request above but its closed already... huh?!?!?!? "BIG RV. Some id10t tried to implement voting on the "let's make sure vfd is not voting" discussion. Um. Ok. Undoing the screwage" WHAT?!?!? Anyway, I'm restoring the request thing because I think it's a good idea. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't stringently adhere to guidelines if we have a proper discussion. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This is a perennial proposal that people have finally gotten around to actually implementing. All objections I've seen are either from people who were unaware of the discussion here, or are along the lines of "it's pointless" or "it's too large in scope to tackle". The people implementing the change may be wasting their time - but it's their time. It is quite possible to move all relevant pages properly without interfering with wikifunctionality. Radiant_>|< 11:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's certainly been wasting my time, as a deletion sorter. Presumably it's wasting the time of anyone trying to fix the numerous redlinks and multiple redirects created by this. And for the record I do object, on two grounds -- I object to the specific form ("Articles for deletion," ghettoizing the non-article process), and to the chaotic manner of going forward without a clear objective. I have voiced my objections here and elsewhere. Frankly, I don't see what was so urgent about this name change, even if a change away from VfD is basically a good idea. How much time was allowed for debate? Minutes? Hours? -- Visviva 11:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense! People maybe have hinted at it for years but that would take into a lot of wild assumptions
The Jimbo comment seems rather irrelevant to this change. In addition, the fact that there was "Pages for deletion" first shows that while there may have been a lot of discussion, there wasn't the right kind of discussion. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Ryan Norton and Philip Baird Shearer,

Majority voting is banned on wikipedia, because it's incompatible with writing an encyclopedia. You can't vote on the facts. To make up for this, we use a form of community consensus instead. People occaisionally break this rule, and we need to fix it then.

Ironically, votes for deletion actually does follow the "no majority voting" rule, but the name is strange (hence the name change).

At the same time, apparently people haven't been watching WP:RM at all, since someone seems to have set up a procedure that spams majority votes all across wikipedia. That's definately not good.

So, in any case, someone walks into a discussion about "Let's make it clearer that majority voting is not allowed and rename this page" and goes, (and I kid you not):

Hey Guys, Let's hold a majority vote!

In fact: he actually used a level 2 heading. That's much bigger and bolder.

Seriously: How did you expect folks to respond?

Kim Bruning 13:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a VfD-style discussion over the change, which only seems appropriate. As for how I expect people to respond - I expect them to calmly take into consideration whatever goes on there, no just remove it (this is a talk page too, so removing stuff is discouraged). In addition, as for the level 2 heading, well that's perfectly appropriate if the person wanted to do it. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean requiring 60% majority? Yeah, right. Kim Bruning 19:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... yeah... that would be a consensus (well 60-80 actually)... LOL This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What has been written above by Kim Bruning looks like Microsoft's FUD. If you are referring to my contribution. I would like to present a few facts:

  • Apart from the initial proposition all WP:RM discussions take place on another talk page. Usually it is the talk page of the page to be moved. This is similar to the subpages pages of VFD but because nothing is going to be deleted there is no need to have a seperate archive page and it means that editors who "watch" the article can easily see the discussion evolving without having to "watch" yet another page.
  • There is no "spam[ming] majority votes all across wikipedia". What WP:RM says is "Requested moves may be implemented if there is a rough consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged."
  • The title I used was:==Requested move== which is in line with the WP:RM guidelines.
  • The paragraph I added under under "Requested move" is now back on the page so people can read it and judge for themselves if I stated that it should be a simple majority vote. WP:RM considers 60% to be a rough consensus in favour of a move, because moving a page is not nearly as "big a deal" as setting policy, deleting a page, or promoting an admin. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kim. Please stop saying that votes are banned. They are not. They are evil, but they are not banned. They aren't law. They aren't compulsory to follow. They are often misguided. Put a "this poll stinks" section in if you must, but don't take on some kind of editor mantle and delete people's comments because they are banned. Personal attacks are banned. Polls are not. Your persistent removal of polls without even explaining that you were about to do something is becoming trying and perhaps annoying. Getting consensus is great. Removing polls without even discussing it only antagonises. [[smoddy]] 19:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KB, I would have thought in this case you would be pleased that you only have to persuade 60% or more of the people to agree with you for the move to be agreed to under WP:RM guidelines. Would you prefer the threshold in this case to be 70% or more (as for VFD) before a rough consensus for a move is agreed to? Philip Baird Shearer 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, FFS. Not people using polls to try to sort things out again!? Consensus is consensus, not some arbitrary per cent. If you fail to understand this, I worry deeply. And yes, votes are banned.
James F. (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the Westminster system of government, if one is a member of a Cabinet then all decisions are consensual collective and inclusive. If as a member does not agree with a decision (s)he can resign from the Government as did several British ministers over the invasion of Iraq. This means that in the Westminster system of government the cabinet always collectively decides all decisions and all ministers are responsible for arguing in favour of any decision made by the cabinet. It is a major cornerstone of the Westminster system.

Wikipedia is very different, for all but uncontroversial trivial propositions, it is unusual for decisions on Wikipedia talk pages to operate on a true consensus. Instead they operate on a rough consensus where it is recognised that a minority are in decent. The question then arises is how large must the majority be to ignore the opinions of a minority? Not everyone who has expressed an opinion about this move is in agreement with the move so there is is no consensus. In this case if the page is to be moved it will only be moved with a rough consensus in agreement. Unless there is a place for people to clearly indicate what their opinion is how can one know if one has a rough consensus and an agreed interpretation of the size of the rough consensus?

James F. you state "votes are banned" under which policy (not guidelines) are votes banned and how was the decision arrived at for such a ban? Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discontent over VfD namechange

I'd like to voice my discontent over how this "process" (in quotes because its not really a process) is being handled, as at least from here its clear not everyone agrees with the move. Meanwhile Uncle G's bot is rapidly changing page names... not only that but the VfD template is locked and there is a revert war going on there between the admins. This gives off the appearance that just a few admins got together and unilaterally decided to change things, pretending there was a consensus. (I generally agree with the name change but the way its being handled leaves much to be desired...) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • One does get the impression that the "consensus" the proponents refer to must have arisen on some other forum, since it has never been evident here. Perhaps they raised the issue on IRC? -- Visviva 11:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • edit conflict: As the instigator of this round, I can tell you that as far as I know, all discussions have taken place here. Those discussions are informed by all the previous times we've discussed the change (mostly here but now lost in the archives). After carefully reading all the comments so far, I believe there is an emerging consensus though not yet a decisive consensus. That is, of course, an interpretation of the current state of the discussion. Rossami (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're going slow and easy, taking things gradually. That way if someone says "Hold up!" or finds some massive reason why there shouldn't be a move, they can give a yell and we can still go back. Sooooo, stop complaining about not having been heard since ohhhh last thursday or so, and start complaining about your opinion as to what's wrong with moving, that way folks can answer your concerns. Will that do? *listening now* Kim Bruning 13:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Sooooo, stop complaining about not having been heard since ohhhh last thursday or so" I'll complain how I want to, thank you very much . "start complaining about your opinion as to what's wrong with moving," I already did. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, so far, there is a consensus for the name change (although I would argue that the "sample size" is still too small) but there is not a consensus for the way it is being done. This is causing unnecessary ill-will. Supportive relationships between editors is probably even more important than the correct name for VfD. Paul August ☎ 14:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a misleading statement of what's going on, that falsely implies that the 'bot is doing one thing when in actual fact it is doing something else. The 'bot has been employed, as explained on Template talk:vfd, to deal with the consequences of the change to that template and to ensure that there aren't any dangling redlinks that will cause duplicate discussions. In other words: It has been cleaning up some of the mess. Most of the sub-pages of Wikipedia:Pages for deletion are now sub-pages of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (The rest I have to sift through by hand.) and there are redirects in place from sub-pages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I've made an offer, above, to use the 'bot to rename all of the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion sub-pages to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But the 'bot hasn't done any of that work. I simply made an offer, for you to discuss either taking me up on or declining in favour of using the alternative that I also mentioned alongside the offer. I also told you what I would need if you did decide to take up my offer. Uncle G 19:07:18, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
  • And no one has offered a substantive reason why to oppose this other than "You're doing it wrong." I tried asking that several times before, but it always turns into a "Votes are evil" discussion. Pfft. There is consensus for the move. Kim, Uncle G, go ahead and be bold. Things will never be done if we wait for "every" editor to voice his opinion. --Titoxd 00:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The substantive reasons are "this is a major change, and there was not a clear consensus, nor a reasonable time for one to form", and "there was considerable disagreement about the new name, and the related issue of whether to split off non-article-space deletions" and "there was diagreemnt about whter to also move old archived pages" and "doing this piecemeal disrupted things for users". Process matters. Often it mattters more than the result. DES (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following procedure too strictly can result in Instruction creep (I never thought I would say that!), and that is part of the spirit behind WP:IAR (again!). There has been significant discussion here, so a vote is not necessary. Besides, having a "vote" to remove "Votes" from the name seems quite paradoxical.
  1. Major change: of course it is a major change! But we need it, because the idea that VfD runs on majority votes has been causing problems as of late.
  2. Clear consensus: the only one who has objected to this move is Ta bu shi da yu. He's a respected user, so I take his opinion seriously, but still, that is only one vote (pardon the word) out of how many?
  3. Reasonable time: how much is reasonable? Long enough until no one wants to do it anymore? That goes against one of Wikipedia's tenets, WP:BOLD.
  4. The new name issue seemed pretty much settled: Articles for Deletion would be the choice, contingent on the creation of WP:NFD or similar. That has been done.
  5. Old archived pages: These pages aren't as visible as the main VfD pages (which seem to be causing most of the complaints) so they can be moved with a bot quickly and without causing major disruption. Uncle G has already offered to do that.
  6. Disrupted things for users: everything this size will cause problems for the users. However, by doing revert wars on templates and dragging this discussion longer than it needs causes even more problems.
--Titoxd 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Clear consensus: the only one who has objected to this move is Ta bu shi da yu" I think that this is misleading. There seem to be four different types of concerns:

  • Where is the consensus how have you arrived at it:
    • smoddy -- maybe hard to tell
    • -IByte
    • DES
    • Ryan Norton
    • Rossami --emerging consensus though not yet a decisive consensus
    • --there is a consensus for the name change ... but there is not a consensus for the way it is being done
    • Philip Baird Shearer
  • What is the hurrry:
    • Paul August
    • Ryan Norton
    • Zoe
    • Sean Curtin
    • DES
    • Visviva
  • prefer "Articles for Deletion"
    • SimonP
    • Steve block
    • Theo
    • Sean Curtin
    • James F.
    • the wub
    • Thryduulf
    • 132.205.3.20
  • Oppose to the move:
    • Grue -- although his last comment on 19:57, 27 August 2005 indicates a change of position.
    • FearÉIREANN
    • Aquillion
    • Machtzu
    • Ta bu shi da yu

BTW the above should not be seen that any of theses people actually agree with the list placing I have put them in, it is just my reading of this page and I may well have misunderstood a person's position, which is why I think a WP:RM poll is the best way to clarify the situation. Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

I think this list is very had to follow as a WP:RM list. So I propose that the Proposals are laid out in the standard WP:RM format, first the proposal from the WP:RM page then the proposed options. In line with the WP:RM guidelines Approval voting is encouraged and a rough consensus is (60% or more). You can add more proposals and vote for more than one proposal and change you votes at any time up to the close of the poll, but you can not "oppose" a proposal. Usually a vote is open on WP:RM for five days from the time of posting, but that can be extended and in this case I think the counting should start from the time stamp with my signature at the end of this paragraph as the requested move was not laid out clearly on this talk page and this is a change seems to involve a lot of work so there should be no need for haste Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move copied from WP:RM:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion → Wikipedia:Pages for deletion (or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) – This notion has come up several times before. User:Rossami has proposed it this time around on the grounds that we are spending too much time reminding editors that the word "Votes" in the title is misleading. A concrete migration plan is being formed, locating all of the ramifications that this change will have. Some peripheral changes have already been made. Uncle G 23:51:49, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Add # Support followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

No move. Page name should remain "Votes for deletion"

  1. Support I cannot express my disagreement more. Do you know how many articles we have in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion namespace? The mind boggles at the amount of work it would take to move the articles - even with a bot things might be missed. A terrible idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC) -- "oppose move" taken from the WP:RM page Philip Baird Shearer[reply]
  2. Support now, if anyone is still bothering to look at votes. I said below that I thought it was just useless; but the amount of resistance and problems it's encountering has shown that it's both useless and disruptive. While the intention is good, this simply isn't worth it. Aquillion 02:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Article For Deletion sounds like it has been already decided that they will be deleted. If people can't bear the name VFD at least make it Nominations For Deletion or something else that indicates there will still be discussion and consensus seeking. RJFJR 16:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. if anyone is still looking for votes. Moving is too disruptive, and not worth all the problems that are likely. Also thoroughly dislike how this change has happened...--Mairi 02:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. This entire process doesn't seem efficient, and I agree that moving this would be disruptive and not nearly worth the effort that it would take to do so. Besides, vote isn't so misleading, as the word simply means to express a preference for one of two or more alternatives, which is exactly what the process aims to do. So some people don't understand that "wikipedia is not a democracy" -- you are going to change the title because some people don't understand it? That's not going to make a great deal of difference in my opinion. Parallel or Together? 14:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to "Pages for deletion"

Proposed move to "Articles for deletion"

  1. Support. This shouldn't really be a vote, since discussion is very advanced, and the objections to Articles for deletion have been satisfied by the creation of Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Any annoyance during the change is going to be purely temporary, as any major change to any page will prove. --Titoxd 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Let's make the page "Articles for deletion."  Denelson83  23:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support provided an appropriate (and well-named) separate page for considering deeltion of pages in the wikipedia, user, adn perhaps talk namespaces is active. DES (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, obviously. I find it surreal that this has gone to a vote at this stage, but what the hell. Just do it, for Zarquon's sake. sjorford (?!) 12:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Good idea. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Just do it. Even though I, er, kinda said I would help out with the transition, I haven't at all yet, and I haven't noticed any problems with pages not working, etc. android79 00:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. I was thinking about this last week (and how it could be done), I go away for the weekend and look what happens... the wub "?/!" 12:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Like others I don't think a vote is the best way to handle this. I think there is the notion that the only choice is to just do this change anyway, based on the level of consensus achieved so far, or have a vote. But that is a false dichotomy. I've suggested other ways of building a clear consensus (above), but no one seems particularly interested in them. Oh well, I still want to see this change happen, I still believe it will help make the deletion process better. There are only three objections I've seen. First, some say that it is a waste of time — but if it is a waste, it will be a voluntary waste. Second some object because of are unhappy with the way this has been handled (I agree that it wasn't handled as well as it could have been) — but, to object on that account seems like cutting off my nose to spite my face. Third, some fear it may be disruptive — but if handled correctly the disruption should be minimal and in any case it will be temporary. In short, any benefits will last for the lifetime of the project, while, if we are lucky, the "costs" will be amortized over many many many years. Paul August ☎ 17:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, though adding yet another "for Deletion" page to deal with non-articles is a minor problem. The process is going smoother than I anticipated; we should have done this a year ago. Denni☯ 00:32, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
  10. Support Dan100 (Talk) 15:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I could not work out from this list who was in favour of which Proposal, so please move your opinion to the appropriate Proposal above and if a proposal does not exist which covers your opinion please add it. Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "list" referred to above is the section #Consensus to do anything at all which this section was directly above when I first wrote it. Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added "Pages for deletion" as another proposal because it is mentioned in the WP:RM request and in the move template at the top of this page. Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If in your opinion more than one proposal is a credible option, you can express you approval by placing you support under as many proposals as you think are appropriate. Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it was one rough move that should have been done differently. Now that it's done though it seems ok, although personally I like "votes for deletion" since its humerous while the "articles for deletion" is rather drab, I must say This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Week at a View

Is this ever going to get fixed? If not, can we remove the whole section? It's silly to have a section called "week at a view" which only has links to today and yesterday. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will be fixing the code for the VFD List... now AFD List sometime this US Labor Day weekend. Please bare with me. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the state is supposed to be currently, but my bookmarks (and hand-coded URLs) for WP:AFD/Yesterday (which was a hand-change from WP:VFD/Yesterday) appear to have broken; all I get is the 31 August page, even if I purge page cache and/or my own browser cache. Or is the "yesterday" alias no longer going to be supported? -- MCB 00:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot wars?!

Ok... now we are entering the science fiction domain, aren't we? Do I see bots involved in an edit war? Ther's no way we simple humans can keep up the pace if this becomes usual procedure.
We just had an AFD bot creating an Afd new log page, followed by an Uncle G's 'bot starting it again.
Will you please stop? Nabla 00:23:05, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

AFD is born out of VFD's old code, which is that it posts the new page one hour ahead. Supposely, Uncle G has made the claim that his bot isn't suppose to edit if the page is already created. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is working properly now. Fine. My aim was solely to call the comunity's attention that having bots involved in editing controversial pages may became a real danger to the wiki spirit, which includes that you may change back things you don't agree with. Nabla 23:01:05, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

"You don't have to vote on every nomination"

Would it be possible to make this particular aspect of VfD AfD etiquette more than just a suggestion? Yes, this does happen every so often. android79 13:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's best as is. Some people do vote on a lot of nominations, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. It's really personal preference, and trying to "enforce" this more would be messy anyway Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about voting on every single nomination in a day-page, to the point of offering up a (pointless) Abstain vote if the editor hadn't made up his mind yet. Maybe "Don't vote if you don't have an opinion" would be a good thing to have. android79 13:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Motion to move into General Discussion

Too often, especially on disputed nominations, all you see is a long list of:

  • Keep blah blah
  • Delete DEFINITELY!
  • Delete Haha!
  • Keep bang

...

This example is clearly contrived, but what ends up happening is that every person keeps on stating their reasons and there is very little conversation.

For relatively undisputed nominations, this is a fine way of doing things, but other times, it would be more productive to handle discussions talk page style. Is there any accepted procedure of "motioning" for this sort of change? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Lets pitch in anyway

I think even those who mildly disagree such as myself should pitch in a bit in the move, at least to get things more smooth around here (I already took care of redirects etc. for vfd top/bottom templates I think).

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines

I think that a matter of personal view should not be showen on Wikipedia, like the topic for Objections to Salvation Army Doctrines. I would consider this for deletion. Thank you

Old VFDs

I see that old VFDs from at least 28th August have remained unresolved by Admins. It's quite sad that we seem to have been so caught up in this insular navel-gazing over reform to VFD rather than doing the actual work of maintaining the encyclopedia. Personally I hope that this reform process is over as soon as possible so that people can return to productive work. Leithp 11:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • The backlog used to stretch out for ten days or more, mere months ago. I think VfD AfD participants ought to be commended for keeping the backlog this short, even while doing the much-needed name change. Bravo! android79 13:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, my experience with VFD was that the nominations were always closed in a timely manner, which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Hopefully this is just a temporary blip. On an entirely unrelated note, good luck with gathering support for your current RfA. Leithp 14:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Most nominations are closed in a timely manner – note that most of the discussions on the August 28th page have been closed. It's always been the case that the more contentious or confusing discussions take a little longer to close, and if a discussion doesn't attract enough votes, many admins simply choose to let it sit longer. (BTW, thanks!) android79 14:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=22828280"