On 10/17/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
At the time of this writing en has 776,230 articles.
By definition, the
articles we're talking about are generally not "popular" - there are
only a few people interested in them one way or another. It's very easy
to overlook an AfD in all that for a five-day period, I managed to miss
the entire existence of the "The Jar" article from its creation through
to its deletion over a much longer period than that.
You relise the logical end point of that is that wikipedia has grown
beyond our ability to manage it and needs drasticaly downsizeing? Even
the most extream deletionists would probably feel that that was going
a little far.
Bit of a topic shift there. The template namespace is
very different
from the article namespace and is not addressed by AfD. There's TfD for
that, with its own separate set of criteria for template deletion.
I was refuring too the human habit of minimising expenditure of
energy. Under the suggested changes we would end up with an impressive
number of templates for voteing on AFD
Redirects can be changed. This is kind of a
side-issue, though, specific
to this one particular article.
No you have already admited that not many people would care. What
makes you think the redirects would be changed?
But you're only basing that on the results of an
AfD, and a major point
of this discussion is that some of us are arguing that some AfDs are not
receiving the sort of attention that they should be.
Here's another idea that just occurred to me to
toss into the pot, how
about leaving AfDs open for a much longer period of time, like a month
or so? Before reacting that this would make AfD's backlog enormous, bear
in mind that it wouldn't affect the rate at which articles enter AfD and
are deleted from AfD, and thanks to each day having its own page it'd be
just as easy to handle the housekeeping. There'd just be 30 day-pages in
the queue in front of /old rather than 5. This doesn't address the issue
of unsupported votes, but it would be a step towards getting more votes
from people who read the articles as opposed to those who specialize in
reading the AfD listings.
ADF/[[wikipeida:wikiproject decency]] going on for thirty days? You do
know that dissrupting wikipedia is a blokerble offence.
I really don't see any difference between a vote
that's explained with a
useless "nn" and a vote that's explained with {{nn}} which expands into
a paragraph-long genereric dissertation on the subject of notability.
Typing those curley brackets doesn't require any extra thought and
provides no extra information.
I don't regard nn as useless so I have no problem with them amounting
to the same thing.
--
geni