Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:33, 29 August 2006

• ]

Archives
1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 4a, 5 Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4, Z5, Z6 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 30, 31 Renamed Articles for deletion about this time. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

Voting symbols

Symbols that may be used whilst voting: Wikimedia Vote Symbols --WikiCats 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A newbie has a problem with the deletion process

I was looking for an administrator to help me with a article deletion process, and "Requests for administrator attention" sent me here. I edited a section of an article, restoring chronological order and NPOV mostly, but also various little but necessary tweaks like a broken ref and redundacy. Part of the changes is under discussion on the talk page.

Someone created a new article copying the pre-edited content whole with POV and errors hours later, then went and linked it from many article. I was unfamiliar with the deletion process so I went and read the deletion policies. I couldn't find anything relating to this particular problem: is it OK to bypass the discussion process and simply create a content fork using old material? I'm not asking about weither this particular section deserve it's own article (I think it don't, it's just one controverstial ad campaign among many others and merely a content fork to evade debate), but rather what is appropriate for me to do in this situation (afd, proposed deletion or speedy?) and what arguments I'm supposed to make since they don't mention content forks. I can't go and edit the new article either, since it's the basicly the same content as in the main article and still under discussion on the talk page. I'll just be accused of silencing criticism anyway (again). Any help is appreciated. Jean-Philippe 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Content can be split out from articles. I notice that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a very long article, so if the content was originally in that article and moved to Holocaust on your Plate, that would make sense. However, most of the detail about the campaign seems to have been left in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, so if a split is being done then some of the material in the PETA article should be cut down. Alternatively, you could turn Holocaust on your Plate into a redirect to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, discussing it on Talk:Holocaust on your Plate if necessary. I don't think an AfD is necessary - a redirect would make more sense. --Sam Blanning 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think it has been forked off just to provide a POV you should discuss it on the talk page (and make sure that editors from both articles are involved). This may be useful in the discussion: WP:POVFORK. It is only a guideline but at its root it goes back to WP:NPOV, so if you are unable to resolve the problem on the talk page you could list at AFD as a POV article. WP:RFC,WP:RFM and Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal are (possibly less aggressive) alternatives to listing it for deletion if you can't resolve it amongst the editors. Yomangani 00:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For now I'm redirecting the fork back to the main article. I've given an explanation on the fork and it's editor talkpages. As well as initiated a discussion on the main article in addition to the content dispute. I do think it was meant as a sort of pov fork, but we'll discuss it, maybe fork it later. It should be fine. Jean-Philippe 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

seperate closed discussions

Would it be reasonable to move closed AFDs to a seperate page, and replace them with a one line summary & link? The sheer size of the daily log and the time it takes to load is hard to work with; seperating the ones that are no longer open for discussion seems like the simplest way to shrink this. -Steve Sanbeg 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. At times, there are over 200 AfD's, some of which have a response rate of 15 or more bullet point statments. Lets see if we can get a consensus though. SynergeticMaggot 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm for it. Speedy deletes and closed relisted discussions can sometimes take up half the log page even on the day they are listed. Yomangani 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. It would create more unnecessary work for admins closing discussions for the sake of - what - people having to press Page Down less often? We have enough of a backlog at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old as it is. Scrolling down a list of 100-200 AfDs (Ctrl-F doesn't work on the edit window) looking for one in particular is annoying enough on the few occasions I'm relisting an article (taking it out of the old log and inserting it into a new one). If I had to do it on every single AfD, I would in all probability stop doing one of my favourite admin activities. Without wanting to sound elitist and "har har you don't know what you're talking about", none of the above three supporters are admins and I'm not sure they appreciate how annoying this extra step on an already sufficiently burdensome process would be. --Sam Blanning 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

To endorse Sam's position, we used to have that step as part of the archiving procedure. It was never properly followed. We lost a lot of deletion discussions that were never properly archived. We got into countless arguments over renominations - arguments which we have been able to quickly solve since we changed to this archiving procedure.

What you can do instead is to create a .css subpage which will automatically hide all the closed discussions from your view while leaving it visible for people like Sam who still need it. Instructions follow. Rossami (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Check your preferences and see which Skin you are using. The default is "monobook".
2. Create a new page titled User:Foo/skin.css (where "Foo" is your username and "skin" is the name of your skin - mine is at User:Rossami/monobook.css)
3. Paste ".vfd { display:none; }" into the new page.
4. Save.
5. To disable the hiding, go back to your style page and temporarily blank it, then reload the AFD page. Note: You may have to manually purge your computer's cache.

I'm sure we all know how burdensome the the process is. I just wanted to know if it was reasonable to make the page a bit smaller, so we wouldn't have to wait so long for it to render each time, since this makes it more tedious to participate in the discussion.

If admins don't want to do it (and of course, why would they) couldn't a bot just summarize the closed AFDs, and leave a link to the full discussion?

It looks like Rossami's css doesn't quite do what I wanted, but seems to speed rendering up enough that I'd do something like that anyway. But a few small changes to a few templates would probably make it feasible to keep a summary and block the discussion. -Steve Sanbeg 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, while I was closing deletion discussions during my lunch break at work, I had to use Internet Explorer rather than Firefox to view the daily log, as viewing it in Firefox would crash the crappy company laptop. So I don't object in principle to making the daily logs shorter. However, it certainly shouldn't be a human activity, and I'm unsure about bots. For example, when deciding how to 'summarise' the debate, I assume that would involve saying what the outcome was, and for a bot the natural choice would be to pick out whatever the closing admin highlighted in bold. However, not all discussions get closed with a single term in bold - while the majority are 'keep', 'delete', 'transwiki', etc, in some cases it can be more complicated. For example, in nominations involving multiple articles, "Delete Article X and Article Y, keep Article Z." Or I may use bolding once for the outcome, then once again for emphasis in my reasoning. Or I may just forget to bold the outcome at all.

Really, that's the sort of reasoning that should be left up to those that can actually create bots and know more about the difficulties. All I can say is, I freely admit that I was in the extreme minority when I got annoyed because I had to use a slow browser during part of the process, and wouldn't consider suggesting any more than the most minor change to remedy that. --Sam Blanning 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there an experiment with closing *FDs by deleting all the content/discussion except the closing admin's result, and then compressing that between the {{*fd top}} {{*fd bottom}} templates? A link to the last full-screen edit might be useful for those who wish to view it.

Another option would be to use the new hide/show tags, if they ever get the crossbrowser/crossskin bugs worked out. -- nae'blis 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Using noinclude tags in the closing templates might be a solution - it wouldn't create any more work for the admins, but properly implemented would make the discussion disappear from the log page while still appearing on the article page.See what I mean: User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtest and User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtestlog just has noinclude added to the closing templates. There's probably some escaping to take into account as it's one stage removed from the template and it needs a link to the discussion page, but it did take me all of 3 minutes, so you'd expect some polishing to be needed. Yomangani 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would have been a good solution if <noinclude> tags could be nested or escaped, but a little research has revealed that isn't yet possible. Yomangani 12:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out this lovely bit of voodoo by Locke Cole, found here: <incl<includeonly>u</includeonly>deonly></incl<includeonly>u</includeonly>deonly>; might be a place to start. -- nae'blis 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was playing around with splitting the tags, but not embeding the other tags inside them. I'll have another go. Nice, thanks. Yomangani 15:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking to summarize the debate by keeping at least the name of the article and the admin's result, and possibly the reason for the nomination, but moving the discussion somewhere else, and leaving a link to it. I agree with Sam Blanning that it wouldn't be useful to try and sumarize the admin result. I've forgured out a way to reduce these using css, as Rossami recomended (thanks!):

 div.vfd dl{display:none}
 div.vfd ul{display:none}

Which seems to kill most of the discussion, while still listing the the result, and leaving a lik to at least the wikitext discussion. Using a bot to move/delete the discussion would be a nice way to make things simpler for people to participate without css hacking, though. -Steve Sanbeg 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

voodoo

Thanks to the Voodoo from Nae'blis, I have a working version of the afd templates that compact the closed discussions down to title and result, without the need for a new page and let you see the full discussion by clicking on a link.

See: User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtestlog1 for an example.

It doesn't require any more work from admins as far as I can see: although the reason for deletion is a parameter to the template, it defaults to delete (as most AFDs are deleted I believe) and automatically signs it for you, so in theory it should be less work. It's not the most attractive template code in the world, but does anybody care about that? Yomangani 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I'm not sure if everyone would agree with hiding the heading & removing it from the TOC, since that could confuse people. I agree substing the sig is the way to go; I do that when I add the afd2, also. Could you post a link to the template? -Steve Sanbeg 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Slick work. I notice that {{afd top}} uses a noinclude tag to just avoid closing the div, so that {{afd bottom}} can envelop the whole thing. Rather than making the reason for deletion a parameter, can you emulate this behavior instead? That would alleviate a lot of confusion on the part of closers who want to try adopting this. -- nae'blis 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The templates are here: User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtop and User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDbottom. I tried to think of a way round the parameter thing, but the reason for deletion is above the closing of the top template now (to allow the discussion to be enclosed in noinclude tags) rather than after it as it is in the current template. I can't see anyway of solving it without adding a third template {{afd middle}} which would be more work. See if you can see any solution in the templates. Yomangani 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

it seems unlikely that there would be a good way around that. When it occurs at the very end, as it does now, it makes sense to keep it outside. In your version, probably not. One minor thing, it looks like you may have overdone the <includeonly>. Assuming I'm reading this right, they're only to break up special syntax, so you could just have an empty pair in key places, like <<includeonly></includeonly>onlyinclude> or ~~<inlcudeonly></includeonly>~~, and the rest may be overkill. Nice effect, though. -Steve Sanbeg 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless you use them to cover the whole of the tag in one way or another you get (partial) display of the tag when viewing the original template. It doesn't actually cause any problems but it looks ugly. I figured it was better to look ugly in the template itself. I fixed the heading so it appears in the summary btw (although the link is broken while it is in the user space it gives you an idea of how it would look) Yomangani 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if the original template is jacked up (use a section to prettify it, if that's your concern), as it's only a Part 1 of 2 template; maintaining consistency with current template behavior would go a long way toward increasing the likelihood of this being adopted, IMO. Thanks for running with this, though... -- nae'blis 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we are talking at cross purposes (or I've lost the plot). I had to move the closing admin's comment to be a parameter to the template because it has to be inserted before the end of the {{afd top}} template in order to allow the <noinclude> tag to start after it and above the discussion (otherwise the discussion will be visible or the result hidden). I agree it would be preferable to keep the process the same for the admins, but I can't see any way to do that and hide the discussion, which is the object of the exercise. I was hoping the fact that for a "Delete" result the admin would have less work (just pasting in the top and bottom templates) would offset the disagreeable business of changing the system. On a point of trying to get concensus maybe we should reopen this discussion somewhere where Category:Admins who do a lot of AFD closing hang out? Yomangani 15:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Yeah, I think I got sidetracked there. I don't see a clean way to get around that problem; being as we're already at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion, I'd try WP:AN to get more feedback (I've even included a handy new section header, at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#voodoo). -- nae'blis 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the entire aim of this to hide closed discussions so that the ones that are still open are easier to locate on per-day pages? We already have a mechanism for that. Being able to read prior discussion pages in their entirety without any extra hoops to jump through is useful, especially when articles are discussed again, as they sometimes are. (There have been several in the past few days alone.) Please don't prevent that. The discussion is just as important as the decision by the closing administrator. If your problem is with scanning through old per-day pages, please use the existing solutions for that. Uncle G 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The aim is to hide closed discussions on the log page - it does nothing to the discussion page itself. If you look at the examples above User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtestlog1 is how it would appear on the log page, User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtest1 is the discussion page (unchanged and in its entirety). It uses noinclude and includeonly tags to show different information on the log page and the actual page. Yomangani 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I started the thread is that one of the barriers to participating in AFD is that it takes so long to render the log page, and it gets rerendered each time you post a comment. So there is a fair amount of latency if you want to go along and participate in the discussions. Since there are so many that get speedied out quickly, the most obvious way to speed up the rendering is to only inline the discussions that you can actually participate in, and have the archived entries be visible, and only a click away if you want to get the details on this. It seems like if these templates are used to close the discussions, it would approximately double the rendering speed of the current log page, and probably have more of an affect on older pages. -Steve Sanbeg 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• You can also wrap the log page in a div, and do some fancy CSS to hide everything between the tags without using <noinclude>. For example, put a <div class="afdlog"> at the top of the page, and then do something like this in a global CSS page:

.afdlog *  div.vfd, .afdlog *  div.vfd ul{display:none};

Titoxd 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But since that only hides the items once they have been downloaded, so it wouldn't speed the load times would it? I doubt it would save much rendering time either as I suspect the hidden divs are rendered then hidden (but I must admit I know nothing about the internals of css rendering engines). The advantage of noinclude tags is the content is removed before it is served. Yomangani 20:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a better solution down at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#A_bot_to_seperate_closed_discussions. Yomangani 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Header - time stamps

Anyone think it would be a good idea for header on each AfD to say something like:

Created: 10:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC); Current date: 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar to how an RfC header is, so that people can immediately see how much longer to go (barring early closure, of course). rootology (T) 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you already know the start-time just by looking at the timestamp of the nomination? And does the theoretical end-time really matter since the AFD/Old page is usually backlogged by days or more? The instructions are complicated enough already. What does this extra step add? Rossami (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea, to make it even clearer, really, with the extra line of text at the top. It's not a big deal I guess. rootology (T) 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RfCs close in 48 hours, so it's a big deal if I create an RfC at 23:58 on Monday, and an admin deletes it at 00:01 on Wednesday, after only running for one day and 3 minutes, just over half the time it's supposed to. That's why we judge '48 hours' to be from the very minute it starts. But AfDs run for a minimum of 5 days, and often don't get closed that early due to backlog. I've never seen anyone complain that an AfD only lasted four days and a bit instead of five - ok, I suppose they could complain about ~20% of potential discussion time being lost, but I can't imagine it being a solid reason for overturning. --Sam Blanning 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The general rule was that you can't close a discussion until the log-page has been moved over to the /Old page - a bot-enabled action which happens pretty much right at day 5 plus or minus a few minutes. Other than speedy-closes (which have their own rules), I've never really seen anyone jumping the gun. I know the bot was down for a while but thought it was back up by now. Rossami (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

stupid bloody icons

So, I notice that those "vote" icons might be making a comeback. If so, let's all try to do the sensible thing and hack them down mercilessly before the rot spreads in and Winamp gets stuck on Britney Spears for an hour, okay? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? What does Winamp or Britney Spears have to do with this? Can you explain your objection using some sort of arguement? HighInBC 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The icons take up unnecessary bandwidth, make out that some editor's comments are more important than others (which in turn leads other editors to start using them in a race to the bottom), and furthers the misconception that AfD is not a vote. I would certainly encourage all editors to remove icons from comments they see posted in AfDs. --Sam Blanning 13:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

...and furthers the misconception that AfD is not a vote. Uhh, Sam? One too many words there? -- nae'blis 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sam Blanning 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bah, that's what I get for trying to be funny. That's it, I'm off to the Monastery ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One other reason for their removal: on debates with a lot of those icons, my computer freezes. I don't know if that's happening to anyone else, but it appears to be a further reason for their removal. Srose (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to ye olde scary devil monastery, I take? Kim Bruning 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not worthy to have those fine fellows delete all my files, send a threatening email to the boss in my name and trick me into corrupting the entire Accounts database ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that there are almost adjacent threads on how people can make the discusison render faster, and this one on how people can make it render slower. I'd absolutely agree with removing icons from the discussions. -Steve Sanbeg 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for a series of very nice notes explaining to the users why they are pure evil. I've had abouta 97% success rate in the past. It should also be noted that before I've tracked it to use of *horrer* automated voting scripts, which should also be killed with fire. - brenneman 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

image:pastelbox.gif

I think really think that it would add a touch of class to AfD to add a few decorative pastel boxes that would improve debate by calling attention to the best and most valid points of the discussions. We used to have them. AfD really looks pallid and dull without them. Do I also need to add image:ironyalert.gif here? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, get rid of them, quickly. We are already having technical issues in AFD because we're transcluding too many pages (see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#New template limits, Special:ExpandTemplates) - why do we need to burn the 1MB of transclusion memory we have by wasting it on pretty icons? Titoxd 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything like a policy statement or guideline on this? I notice WikiCats has just added a section, top of this page, pointing to vote icons for use in these discussions. Mike Christie (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A bot to seperate closed discussions

I've been following the discussion on the voodoo and seperate closed discussions thread. I'm wondering if a bot should handle this work instead. Thus alleviating anyone having to do it. I have someone willing to make the bot, and I'm willing to run it. If I can get a consensus here, I'll post it to WP:BRFA. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean tracking through the page after the afd templates are put on and adding noinclude tags around the discussion? It would have the problem of trying to detect the end of the admin's comments, but if they alway date stamped them it would be fairly straightforward and isn't a bad idea. Personally, I think my template is an easy solution (as it saves the admins work most of the time) but getting people to change to it will be a struggle because it requires a slight change in how things are done. Yomangani 19:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the idea I had in mind was for the bot to remove the closed AfD altogether (to a subpage), and leaving only a link, similar the one found here: User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtestlog1. I'm not entirely sure how it would work, as I wouldnt be the one designing it. Although I can say that I dont think there would be much of an issue in tracking, the bot would look for the template top being used, possibly even if its subst'd. So anything under {{Afd top}} and above {{Afd bottom}} would be moved to the subpage. Any suggestions for improving the bot or concerns can be raised, and addressed here if needed. The builder is Eagle_101, who has created WikiVoter for AfD's, and I believe has also helped work on VandalProof and VP2. Its my feeling that the bot would in fact be at its best. SynergeticMaggot 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If the link on the log page says it is closed it only has to link to the discussion page, there is no need for another subpage (and in fact another subpage would be pointless). I think the information in User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtestlog1 is probably the bare minimum that should be left. That isn't supposed to be a subpage, it is supposed to show what the link would look like in the main log page (I probably should have surrounded it with some dummy open discussions to illustrate). Yomangani 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. I forgot that the discussion is its own page. Then all the bot would need to do is provide the closed template. Which in my opinion, would require no new changes to closing by admin's and non admins. SynergeticMaggot 20:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I'll stamp on the other discussion Yomangani 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting the idea. I'm also looking for any objections from others before we begin working on the details of the bot, coding and what not. I'm still concerned about how often the bot should be run. I'm leaning toward every few hours, or possibly something like the Mediation Cabals bot is run. Its spots a change, and automatically adjusts. I'm just not sure if it would be better for the bot to run 24/7, and check all five current logs, so it can catch the close as soon as possible or not. The downfall of not letting it run 24/7 would be making it a semi-bot, and running it only at special peak times. And in a large stretch of time, many AfD's could be closed, as speedy delete, speedy keep, etc. This however wouldnt help out much, since approx. 15 AfD's will close in the first 6 hours, but there is really no way of knowing how many will be closed, or relisted elsewhere (to MfD, TfD, CfD, etc. ). SynergeticMaggot 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But then again, I know nothing about bots, which is why someone else is going to be making it, and updating the code. SynergeticMaggot 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary for it to constantly cycle checking for changes. The size of a new log page doesn't become a problem for several hours and an occasional pass to compact the closed AFDs should take most of the sting out of it. Running it something like every 4 hours would probably be fine. Yomangani 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"if they alway date stamped them it would be fairly straightforward and isn't a bad idea" - this is getting above my head but I thought I'd better pull this out - sometimes admins post 'P.S.'s, so that there are two signed comments in the closing summary. I'm certain I've done so at least once. --Sam Blanning 23:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I often come back and either expand my closing comments, or add additional information beneath. I also often note if something has gone to DRV or other similar events. - brenneman 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I doubt this will be a problem - when I made my earlier comment I was thinking on simpler terms. The bot should only replace the included link in the log, not the actual afd file, so you will be able to treat the discussions exactly as you do now. It will have to go through the bot approval process anyway, so any problems should get caught there. Yomangani 15:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I confirm that SynergeticMaggot has been in contact with me. I will set forth the proposed paremeters for the bot in a few hours from this post. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, our data shows that the bot should be run approx. every 12 hours. The bot will be located at User:SynEagleBot. SynergeticMaggot 01:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there, steady on fellows... perhaps we should engage a slightly wider audience first? - brenneman 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you just get off a ranch partner? :) What did you have in mind? I figured AfD talk was the place to discuss this. SynergeticMaggot 07:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss it, but most people's watch lists are very busy, and the section header "a bot" does not exactly scream "Hey we're about to make a functional change to the way this works and then run a bot over the top to enforce it." I'd suggest a note at the adminstrator's noticeboard with a brief summary and a link to this thread. Greenhorn. - brenneman 07:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. Before I run to AN, I would like to know what others think first, here. It wouldnt hurt to have a bot name and trial runs to show off (sandbox mind you). SynergeticMaggot 07:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For me it seems like much complication for very little gain. I do wp:afd/old all the time, and I don't have that much of a problem with the way it already works. But I am a luddite. - brenneman 07:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thats the great thing about it being a bot, to the previous two talk headers to which this thread sparked from. You wouldnt have to change the way you close. The bot picks up the closed AfD and replaces it with a link to the discussion, thus alleviating long discussions and uneeded reading. SynergeticMaggot 08:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I did put a request on AN with reference to the previous discussion above, and made a note to look down here. But judging by the massive response, another one wouldn't hurt. Yomangani 09:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion on the other thread about the possibility of doing it with a bot before the template voodoo came about. Considering how frequenty AFDs get speedied on the day they're submitted, I'd think the bot would need to run fairly frequently, at least on the current day; maybe every hour or so. For previous days, maybe not so much. Although I do like the instant gratification affect of the templates, I'm not too worried about how it's done; if a bot did the updated frequently enough, that would be cool. -Steve Sanbeg 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't closed in a while, shame on me, but I found the js automation that hid closed discussions to be very useful. (I forget where it is from but it's the two functions hideafd() and showafd() in my User:Lar/moretabs/monobook.js along with loading code for when you are on an afd page) ...you still pay load time cost of course but the still open ones stand out nicely. So is this other solution necessary? js of course only works for those that use it. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As you say, it doesn't change loading speed and relies on you having the js installed which isn't possible for (or desired by) everybody. Yomangani 01:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted to AN per the request. I will admit that I know nothing about js. SynergeticMaggot 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 9

All of the discussions on the afd log page aren't transcluded properly for some reason. As far as I can tell, it's just because the page is too large, since removing random entries would cause the rest of them to format correctly. The problem seems to have started somewhere between these edits (when the amount of discussions on the page took a dive, even though the page itself didn't change). It probably doesn't belong here, so if you know of a better place to post this, pass it along, thanks. - Bobet 12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's back to normal now, for those who care. - Bobet 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim McDermott (illustrator)

Does anyone recall if this article ever went through an AfD, perhaps under a different name? It was deleted April 14 as speedy non-notable and recreated May 26 this year. It was tagged today as a speedy but this time as reposted AfD article. I can't find the AfD and it appears to me there is some claim of notabilty that I believe stops it being a speedy. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My best guess would be that it never went to afd and the person who says it did doesn't know that afd specifically means this process instead of speedy deletion (he has no edits in afds himself). People tag speedied entries with db-repost all the time which is likely here. - Bobet 07:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battrick

This article was first posted for AfD on the 4th of August, it was then relisted on the 11th. Shouldn't it be closed by now? --JRA WestyQld2 09:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD is subject to backlog every now and then. It should be closed soon. Also note that others in that days log arent closed yet, or else that days log would have been removed from the main page, and into the archives. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 09:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Link back to the log page in the template?

Sorry if this has been suggested/discussed before, but I'd like to suggest that a link to the appropriate log/day page appear on each individual AfD. The log pages transclude the AfDs themselves, so when you've edited an AfD to record your comment, the link at the top is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, from which you have to scoot down to the day links at the bottom. Am I missing some obvious navigation back to the log pages here? If not, it would be nice to have those AfD articles have a link back to the log page, so that for example on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Banjo Story (2nd nomination) there would be a link that leads to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 20. If it could lead back to the #section title, that would be even better; that would drop you right back in to the list where you were before you edited. Hope this makes sense. I don't yet understand templates well enough to go and experiment in my sandbox on this, but it seems to me that a change to afd2 is what would be needed. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It does get rather annoying to have to do this, even when closing. SynergeticMaggot 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is straightforward as the template on the individual AFD page would need to link back to the log page it was linked from, and, since nothing is transcluded from the log page into the individual AFD page, I don't know how you would know on which log page the AFD was listed (think about relistings for example). However it is late here, and my brain may be broken. Yomangani 01:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could this be combined with the suggestion above for header timestamps? If so, on creation the template could perhaps parse the date for the appropriate log page to link back to? I'm arguing by analogy from other coding languages here, so the argument may not go through for templates, but essentially I'm suggesting that if we pass in a date we can use it to create the link at article creation time. Again, I hope this makes sense. Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's possible, but again brings up problems for relistings and AFDs where the main page is created at, say, 11.58pm and the article listed in the log at 12.02am the next day (both of which would go "back" to the wrong page). Personally, I use the back button or history in my browser to get round this, or launch the link to the article from the log in new window and work from that. Yomangani 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page notice template

Perhaps am overlooking it, but I am suggesting that we create and make available a notice template for inclusion in the talk page(s) of related article(s) to one being suggested for deletion and to make this part of the steps suggested. This is useful in AfD for sub-articles, when a large number of editors might want to be informed of an AfD, and easier than informing each one. However I do not mean it to be a substitute to notifying the page creator in his/her talk page.

Something like this:

Comments?--Cerejota 09:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? We have the AfD tag on the article page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why would this be necessary? You're supposed to put the afd tag on every article included in a particular afd discussion, this would be redundant. - Bobet 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Cerejota meant to place a tag on Talk:Unreal, for example, if Totally Unreal was nominated for deletion. I've done this before in an informal way, to get a better consensus, but I don't think a template is necessary. -- nae'blis 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter

What's everybody's opinion on having an automated process for voting on AfD? Seems to me to violate the "discussion" purpose of AfDs. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, each time I see a discussion contribution via wikivoter I discount it. It may not be rubberstamping—there may have been long rumination before deciding which button to push—but the appearance is that of rubberstamping. There is much brouhaha over not calling what we do at afd voting. I think we do no violence to the word voting by employing it, but I understand the reason for that semantic prohibition. If it is discussion we want, and not simple voting, this automated process is our worst enemy.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The only automation this program does is filling in some of the manual-labor type stuff. Editors still see the actual AfD page, the article page, plus some additional tools to help make an informed decision about the AfD. Like any Misplaced Pages tool, it's the responsibility of the user to use the program appropriately, according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. --AbsolutDan 03:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's really not automated, you actually have to manually type in a reason as to why you are making such a vote. I find that the tool saves a lot of time by making it easy to find AfD's based on the date the AfD was created. Dionyseus 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a total non-issue. If people leave a relevant comment, why should it matter whether they used this to make it or not? If they just leave a vote with no discussion, would it be any better if they hadn't used this thing? If someone thinks it's useful, let them use it. - Bobet 08:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting redirects to deleted articles

I was randomly meandering around today and ran across a redirect that pointed to an article that was deleted via AFD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of pejorative political puns2). Is it SOP to leave redirects after a successful AFD requiring the redirects to go through RFD or should these have been deleted? --Bobblehead 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Busy admins may may miss them when closing AFD's. It really helps if, during an AFD, someone does a "what links here" and posts a note in the AFD that there are redirects. Fan-1967 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• If you see a redirect like that around, just tag it with {{db-r1}}. Special:BrokenRedirects usually has a lot of them, it just happens sometimes. - Bobet 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Added tags to redirects.--Bobblehead 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested changes to guidelines

Can I suggest that step one of the process is tweaked in the following way to help make the edit summaries more helpful?

• Current text: "Please include the phrase "nominated for deletion, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion" in the edit summary"
• Suggested text: "Please include the phrase "nominated for deletion, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/''PageName''" in the edit summary, replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion"
• Reason: Takes people directly to the discussion from the edit summary

Also, step two could be improved with the following changes:

(1):

• Current text: "replacing PageName with the name of the page to be deleted"
• Suggested text: "replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion"
• Reason: current text assumes deletion will happen, the change removes this prejudicing statement.

(2):

• Current text: "Consider the Edit summary "First deletion reason"
• Suggested text: "Please use an edit summary such as "Creating deletion discussion page for ] and providing reason for deletion nomination", replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion"
• Reason: current suggested edit summary too short and uninformative.

Overall, standards of edit summaries should be high here, to allow people to trace the history of such discussions and see more easily what is happening when viewing edit summaries either in a page history, or in a User contributions list. Carcharoth 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the proposed wording is better and more towards a NPOV. SynergeticMaggot 22:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many people even pay attention to edit summary guidelines, and my guess is not many. I don't know if adding mroe steps and making the process more complex will have any significant results. Titoxd 06:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to use those summaries go ahead. But these are only suggestions anyway, and people are free to use whatever summary they like, or to use none at all. There are no requirements and making them longer and more complicated will just make more people ignore them completely. -Splash - tk 13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

May the Lord save us from helpful people! What Misplaced Pages needs is more process? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd prefer that they went to the main AFD page first and not directly to the deletion discussion. There are some very important instructions and very useful tips either directly on the page or on one of the linked pages. Newcomers (the only ones who would be really helped by such a link) are the ones who most need the chance to read those instructions. Rossami (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFD/OLD

Is there really a point of having Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/old and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old? The first is the one that is rarely up to date and gets included in the main afd page, the second is the bot-updated one at WP:AFD/OLD. Wouldn't it be better just to get rid of /old altogether and include /Old on the main page with the irrelevant parts tagged with noinclude? - Bobet 13:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cuddle puddles?

hey guys, the article Cuddle puddle was marked for deletion, but i don't see anything wrong with it- anyone think it should be deleted? 71.136.78.103 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

section

how do you propose that a specific section of an article be deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn88 (talk • contribs) (20:16, August 28, 2006 (UTC)

Just do it; if someone disagrees, they will replace the section. It is best to explain in your edit summary why you want to remove the section, and if it's established and well-known material, consider discussing it on the talk page first. What section of what page are you thinking about deleting? -- nae'blis 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)