Well, and the latter point is more of a long-term goal. No bludgeoning should take place until we've sorted out a well-organized list of other things which would be nice to fix a well. (Also, I don't know what license the doll-collectors picked, but I bet they picked a non-commercial one, which would be incompatible no matter what. I suspect most people gravitate or will gravitate towards nc licenses when they make-their-own-wiki for semi-obvious reasons.) FF On 1/16/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/16/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: If that happens, it's most likely to be exclusive to CC-BY-SA, as none of the others are close in spirit to the GFDL. I haven't seen the doll collectors wiki yet, but it probably does _not_ use BY-SA for that reason. -- --~~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiacc

On 1/16/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: Going for that coveted "Admin with the most RFCs filed against him" spot, I see ;-) It's a nice sentiment, but the approach really won't scale that well (unless a lot more admins go along with it) and will result in lots of upset users. We really need broader institutional changes to the deletion process. Kirill Lokshin

Snowspinner (Snowspinner(a)gmail.com) [060117 07:27]: Good one. I've done so. Though you mean {{expert recovery}} ;-) (Note, of course, the additional text I've put on my page on the subject of deletions.) - d.

Kirill Lokshin wrote: I agree, Phil. I really think you should clarify this (probably on a subpage linked to from your statement) or remove it. Even if it's meant in good faith, it's way too easy for some well-meaning (yes, believe it or not, a good number of the AfD crowd *are* acting in good faith) people to take this the wrong way, as I see has already been done on [[WP:ANI]]. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

Matt R (matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk) [060117 08:27]: Go read the threads. Yes, explicitly because of the webcomics debacle and the way experts are actually treated on AFD/DRV, which is to say really very badly. They didn't even want to risk that. I'm shouting about it because (a) it's a completely unnecessary fork and quite definitely happened for this reason and (b) this just happens to be one we *know about*. - d.

On 1/16/06, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: I'll point out that there are certain portions of the Wikipedia population which LIKE the culture of AFD. These portions are quite vehemently against any major reform; and so long as AFD continues to operate (and it will, barring another Uncle Ed incident) they have no incentive to negotiate over the issue. Kirill Lokshin

David Gerard wrote: Then what sort of process would you propose? Bear in mind that proposals to merely *streamline* the deletion process (i.e. [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion]]) were strongly opposed by both hard-line inclusionists and deletionists. I can't even imagine the sort of scandal over real major reform. And besides, what can be done? Give more weight to "experts"? (I'm not anti-expert or anything; I just can't see how this sort of thing can be accomplished without opening ourselves up to POV pushers from the realm of academia - it's a slippery slope, IMO - or getting the community's co-operation on this. Not to mention how we might end up getting flooded with false claims of expertise on a particular piece of subject matter.) John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

On 1/16/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: So do you see the existence of SfD as a bad thing, then? Kirill Lokshin

On 1/16/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: See SPUI (I believe - it may have been somebody else) complaining that the SfD regulars were doing funny things with stub redirects. Or, somewhat more generally, would you be opposed to the creation of "Webcomics for deletion", "Computer and video games for deletion", "U. S. streets for deletion", etc.? Kirill Lokshin

On 1/16/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Actually, my idea was that step 3 of the AFD nom process would be changed, initially placing noms in a holding cell-type area. Interested parties (possibly a dedicated deletion-sorting project) would then move the noms to a project deletion page, or to the main AFD page if no suitable project existed. Kirill Lokshin

On 1/16/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Interesting. I would increase the number of categories significantly; simply splitting AFD into 8 chunks does little, in my view, to solve its main structural problem: that a centralized listing makes pasting "* NN, D. ~~~~" into every subpage entirely too easy. Kirill Lokshin

geni wrote: I like this. Along with Preliminary Deletion, the categorisation of deletions has always been one of my favoured proposals for reforming the deletion process. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])

On 1/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Nice! Of course, it doesn't appear to have any plans to remove sorted items from the main AFD list - which is pretty much what I'm getting at. Kirill Lokshin

I'm afraid I don't see the "deeply deeply flawed" nature of WP:MUSIC. In my experience, it's an incredibly useful tool. It's also made a lot of AfD discussions less contentious for WP newbies. Instead of what seems like dozens of people passing judgement on your band, it's people pointing to a set of guidelines which doesn't allow for your band's inclusion. The guidelines may be pop and Western oriented, but that's largely a response to the specific problems which WP has had, namely with garage bands from Western countries. I don't see this as a indication of the flawed nature of these guidelines. As geni noted, when we are overrun with vanity articles from music students in opera school promoting themselves, we can add more specific sub-guidelines regarding opera. Is there really a problem with regards to non-pop or non-Western music? The guidelines are vague and inclusive enough that anything remotely notable can make it through provided one is willing enough to provide a solid source or two, which should be required anyway under WP:Cite your sources. As far as this new template goes, I find it appalling that people find it appropriate to openly declare their contempt for consensus in such a manner, and I find it no better than that speedy deleted template which declared an intention to violate image copyrights. In my experience, a decent source or two is all that's needed to save the shakiest article. I really don't see evidence of widespread loss of articles on notable topics, just an occasional anomaly or two like Elf Only Inn that gets deleted. I'm sorry if you find afd or vfu onerous and offensive, but let's let the system work before you storm the Bastille, eh? When the Cyrus Farivar article was on Afd, Snowspinner openly declared his intention to override consensus and that he'd insure the article was kept regardless. It turned out there was no consensus for delete, so Snowspinner's unilateral declaration was completely unnecessary, but now what was a normal run of the mill deletion vote looks like an illegitimate result.