Done Reason box isn't tall enough to see all options

See title --mboverload@ 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Will be done in the next release whether it is v0.8.x or v0.9.0 I don't know, but it is fixed. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done in 0.8.6 (on my PC anyway :) ) Martinp23 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ability to sort chronologically

It would be nice to be able to sort the list chronologically as well - could the timestamp from the nominator be parsed for this? --AbsolutDan 06:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do note that this will be done, but will not be done untill after v1.0.0. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Tab names

Instead of the tab names being static and general, it would be nice if they were specific and dynamic - ie when viewing an AfD, the tab currently "subject of the vote page" should be "Article" or similar, and change if needed down the road when other types of voting are added to the program --AbsolutDan 07:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Fixed Save display preferences

Minor request: When columns are resized, in the list view, the setting is not saved after exiting --AbsolutDan 14:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comming soon. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 Done Reason pull-down could use...

Transwiki - I've used that for both stuff the belongs in books and wiktionary. — RevRagnarok 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that all you have to do is type Transwiki in the pull-down text area, but I added it for ease of use. Thanks for requesting. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

DOne in 0.8.6 Martinp23 23:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 Done Add "vote" option

COuld you add a keep or merge option to the list? Thanks. American Patriot 1776 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Done - you do know that you can type in the field (where you pick your option) what ever you want. Though I will add this for ease of use. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Done in 0.8.6

Correctness checking and civility

Here's two ideas to help make sure that all AfDs are correct, and all interested parties are informed:

• Automatic AfD check - automatically check that the author has been notified, and the link in the article is correct. These are often not done, which is horribly bad form in my opinion. This should be done automatically on selecting to view an AfD. Often failure to do this can show up a bad faith AfD.
• Notify author and editors option - for automatically adding "article flagged for AfD" on user talk pages, as this is often forgotten.

LinaMishima 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This actually doesnt really need to be done. In some cases when the article is old, the author/creator isnt even watching it anymore. Also, I believe there is a bot request for this. SynergeticMaggot 01:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A fair ammount of complaints that I've heard about have been down to the author not getting informed, and it is generally polite to do so, anyways. I would never suggest automatic notification of the author, but a means on request to drop a message on the author's talk page should be trivial. Non-essential when compared to the research tools, but certainly nice LinaMishima 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am working on something like this... it will be in as soon as I get done dealing with the latest rash of bugs. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Research Tools

The big problem with AfDs isn't voting - it's being informed enough to vote wisely. The following should help with that:

• Link for google search on the subject - allow the search query to be changed to allow it to be narrowed.
  • Done in current version... all you have to do is change the search term in the text box next to the search button.
    • Thanks - was not apparent from the feature list or image, hence asked. Good to hear. LinaMishima 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Articles linking to this one link - often reveals a lot about an article
• SwetsWise and other scientific journal listings search on subject - vital for science articles
  • Will probably need means for users to authenticate via Athens
• For articles about websites:
  • Google links search - if a website is heavily linked to, it's probably important
  • Alexa search - has to be with a warning that any figure about 100,000 is not accurate
• List of all URLs within the article - and means to check them out
• List of all books referenced - and means to check them out on multiple systems - not just Amazon!
• List of all scientific papers referenced and means to look them up

Hopefully with all the above, we will have a very effective means to encourage people to check an article's subject before voting, and hence significantly improve the AfD process. LinaMishima 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am hard at work at most of these. Fell free to nag me folks :) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! :) I'll have to go sign up to use this, then ;) LinaMishima 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple requests

• Back (navigation) button in case you get lost on pages. I realize this can be done by clicking the item selection tab and then refresh, but it would be nice to have a back button anyway.
• Alexa for search engine. Must have. Changed mind.
• Under the vote tab, we might need a "Nuetral" option. And I doubt anyone will need the option to double redirect, so you might want to drop that one.
• Also under vote tab, there are also some cases where there should be a "Userfy" and "Transwiki" option.
• WDM also needs to indent the "Comment" option.
• An option button might also need to be created to allow you to have the choice to not watch the AfD after you have "voted". So 100 AfD's are not on your watchlist.

Also, a question. When can we expect this to be used for the other xfD's and RfA? :) I hope all this helps to make a better WDM. SynergeticMaggot 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing for the future. It would be a great feature if you could manage to delist an AfD, and relist it somewhere else. Example. When someone lists a disambig on AfD, it shouldnt be there, but should in fact be listed in WP:MfD. So if WDM could delist it, then relist it on its proper xfD, that would be some awesome prog. SynergeticMaggot 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • For your first request, a quick way of doing this is just to right click on a blank part of the page and select back. As back is often at the top of this context-sensitive menu, it's a quick process. Martinp23 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Item selection screen

I'd prefer it if the column headings were spaced so you can see what the titles are, and they didn't snap back to the default when refresh is clicked. Martinp23 11:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah I am working on this... may or may not be in the next release, but this is on the list. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 Fixed Vote stance

Would it be possible to make WDM add options which the user types into the "Vote stance" box, so if i was to type Delete and Protect, the program would add it to the combo box for future use? Martinp23 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Will be implemented in future Martinp23 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

List sorting

Currently, the list is always sorted alphabetically, by subpagename. Could we get it to sort by the other variables -- number of votes, number of speedy votes, number of keep votes, etc? Or other such sorting options. Luna Santin 05:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pop up search engine

It would be nice if in addition to getting the hit list, we could also double click a given search engine and it would pop it up in a window. Sometimes its not the number but what the hits are that are important.--Crossmr 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ==User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscusion Maneger/Forum

Comments

Features

About "more to come"... It would probably be a good idea to finish this project to a known state, perhaps even the second release version, before allowing features to invite "creep" into the code. I suggest after reaching a stable second release version that you will be able to build a library of code that was kept and which will be common among various projects. Modularity as a theme from the ground up reflects on the entire project.

• Done —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Research Aid

Besides a topic search to Alexa and Google, a scan of the actual article for references might be a good idea as well. The references could be split into sections for internal and external. Also, a scan for categories in the article could also have a small section. Is there a tab for showing the actual article under review?

Strong agree What we need for AfD isn't easier voting, but easier checking. Here's my thoughts on useful improvements

• • Automatic AfD check - automatically check that the author has been notified, and the link in the article is correct. These are often not done, which is horribly bad form in my opinion. This should be done automatically on selecting to view an AfD.
  • Link for google search on the subject - allow the search query to be changed to allow it to be narrowed.
  • Articles linking to this one link - often reveals a lot about an article
  • SwetsWise and other scientific journal listings search on subject - vital for science articles
    • Will probably need means for users to authenticate via Athens
  • For articles about websites:
    • Google links search - if a website is heavily linked to, it's probably important
    • Alexa search - has to be with a warning that any figure about 100,000 is not accurate
  • List of all URLs within the article - and means to check them out
  • List of all books referenced - and means to check them out on multiple systems - not just Amazon!
  • List of all scientific papers referenced and means to look them up
  • Notify author and editors option - for automatically adding "article flagged for AfD" on user talk pages, as this is often forgotten.

Hopefully with all the above, we will have a very effective means to encourage people to check an article's subject before voting, and hence significantly improve the AfD process. LinaMishima 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout

I like the layout itself as displayed. It would be helpful to know what language this is written in and where the documentation for the program is. If the program is available for download/testing, that would be helpful, too. The platform that this runs under appear to be Win32 only. For maximum versatility among various different types of cultures you might want to consider allowing the user more options. If there isn't already a user-option tab, you might want to add one that opens its own window. Just for a quick example there may be users that prefer blue for keep and pink for delete, etc.

Article

The exclamation points appear to me as "selling" the program. A well written program will sell itself. :) You might want to consider starting a log of development activity. As versions progress over time, it is helpful as a reference since various people will have various different problems. You might want to implement some version control to aid in that effort if you haven't done so already.

I wish I'd had a better view than only the screenshot to work with, Eagle. Hope these comments are helpful. Keep up the good work. Ste4k 07:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please kill this dead

We really do not need anything that makes "voting" any easier. It's a good thing if people are "forced" to look over lots of deletion discussions. - brenneman 08:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently there are usually about 170-200 AfD's per day. I believe this tool will help the process out some, if not alot. Its already showed me an AfD that had been deleted, which wasnt closed. In which case, I, as a non admin, closed it. But thanks for your concerns. :) SynergeticMaggot 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read about what else the tool does. It is not to speedup voting as to make it easier to verify facts ect. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that one of the features you boast is being able to produce a vote tally; I'm not at all sure why you think the tally is ever relevant to an AfD. Also, making it easier for people to count the number of search engine hits without having to analyse the content and quality of results, and (especially) making it easier to unfairly prejudice one's self against otherwise sensible comments from relatively new users (or anons, like myself at the current time — though it shouldn't be too difficult to work out my account name), strike me as, well, misfeatures. I appreciate your good intentions in creating this hideous monstrosity, but please, kill it. 150.101.72.113 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple numbers should never be used as a sole criteria for making any sort of decision. However in many cases they serve as a launching point. If an article name gets a million Google hits, there's quite possibly something to that name. If it gets zero, it certainly deserves closer scrutiny. Please consider using the program before criticizing it - all this program does is bring information together - you still need to look at the vote page, you still need to look at the text of the article itself, and you still need to look at the actual search engine results (for which, I might add, the program has its own special tab). This tool provides access to all the same things you would look at when participating at an AfD "manually", it merely provides features that make these repetitive tasks easier and faster. --AbsolutDan 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that not only does it emphasise the voting nature of deletion discussions, it encourages people to contribute to more discussions. This is not a good thing as the more widely a person's attention is spread, the less deply it can be focused. If you're contributing to fifty discussions a day, what are the chances that you'll take the time to carefully read every argument before you comment? how closely are you going to follow the discussions after you comment to make sure that your reasoning hasn't been refuted, or that someone has asked you a question? No no no, sweet mother of corn on the cob, please don't. - brenneman 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Kind of useless

I thought I'd check this out before deciding on it, and since it constantly logs me out every 30 seconds and complains I'm editing from my IP its pretty much useless.--Crossmr 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ==User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscusion Maneger/Guide

Getting Started

• Click on the .exe file to start the program and wait until it puts your username up in the title bar.
• Find and press the 'Refresh' button. This will load in the days AfD votes.
• Find an interesting vote, and click on it (in the upper grid). After doing so, do one of the following to go to that item:
  • press ENTER
  • Double click the item on the list.
  • Press the view selected item button.

To Vote

• Click on the Vote tab (upper panel)
• Type in your argument
• Pick your stance (Keep, delete, etc).
  • Don't add a bullet point to your vote, the program does that.
  • Also, don't worry about signing your name as the program takes care of that as well.
  • The program will automatically put the first 100 characters of your vote into the edit summary, so voting is a one step process.
• Click Vote and wait until the program blanks the text of your vote. (find another article to vote on)

To check search engines

Single engine

• Click on the 'search engine statistics' tab. (after you have selected an article, shown above)
• The search terms that automatically selected are shown in the text field. If you want to change them, do so.
• Click on a search engine in the list.
• Hit the search button
• It will display the count and show the search page in the 'non-wikipedia Browser' (in the bottom panel)

All engines

• Click on the 'search engine statistics' tab. (after you have selected an article, shown above)
• The search terms that automatically selected are shown in the text field. If you want to change them, do so.
• Press the search all button.

To copy search engine counts

This will copy the link and the count to your clipboard (allowing you to paste in the vote field).

• Select the search engine from the list (that you already searched) and click 'Copy Url'. This copies the url and the count to your clipboard
• Paste to with the rest of your vote.
  • The format of this is [<URL><SPACE><COUNT> The last bracket is not added, so add it yourself. (minor bug that I can't figure out and am not going to waste my time on right now)

For the new 8.9 release

If you run into problems:

• First open and go to the Statistics tab
• Next, under the user area add in a value in the drop down menu
• Last, click the reload and enjoy

==User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscusion Maneger/ModRules

• WP:IAR

The list of approved and banned users is here: User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscusion Maneger/Banned

Below are the expectations for WikiDiscusion Maneger moderators.

Adding approved users

stuff here

Banning

Users may be banned temporarily and/or indefinitely from using WikiDiscusion Maneger if:

1. They are confirmed sockpuppet masters, as established by Misplaced Pages administration.
2. They use WikiDiscusion Maneger to engage in blatant violations of WP:CIV or WP:NPA. Examples:
   1. Using WikiDiscusion Maneger to follow another editor around with the intention of making disruptive comments or otherwise harassing said user.
3. They use WikiDiscusion Maneger to engage in blatant violations of any other guidelines. Examples
   1. Using WikiDiscusion Maneger to engage in any form of vandalism (including spamming of any kind).
4. THEIR NAME IS TAWKER AND THEY EDIT CONFLICT ME

To ban a user, edit the "Banned users" section of User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscusion Maneger/Banned and add #{{userVP|USERNAME}} to the list, where USERNAME is the exact username of the user. ==User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscusion Maneger/VerifyUserStatusPage Short page for WikiDiscusion Maneger user verification. ==User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscusion Maneger/Welcome

The newest stable release is v0.8.12. If you don't have v0.8.12 - Please update

• beta v0.8.12 is out - please update v0.8.9-0.8.11 to fix a number of bugs.

Maneger Please look for the latest release here

When you update to v0.8.12, make sure you delete the old XML file used by v0.8.9 to prevent a problem with the signatures.

Help is at this page--- You can also get to the bug report page, feature request page, and the help page via the 'Extra' button on the menu.