I've compared the standard of some current deletion debates with some from a year back, only informally of course and without much system, but it seems to me that:
* really obvious deletions are much less common, suggesting that PROD is doing its job * blatant spam and band vanity is no longer a significant contributor to AfD * quality of debate seems higher, with more references to policy and guidelines and much less bald !voting * more contextual knowledge is evident now, suggesting that categorisation may also be working as intended
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I've compared the standard of some current deletion debates with some from a year back, only informally of course and without much system, but it seems to me that:
- really obvious deletions are much less common, suggesting that PROD
is doing its job
- blatant spam and band vanity is no longer a significant contributor
to AfD
- quality of debate seems higher, with more references to policy and
guidelines and much less bald !voting
- more contextual knowledge is evident now, suggesting that
categorisation may also be working as intended
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Guy (JzG)
Move everyone to different timezones?
-Gurch
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Have the "current debates" page, or whatever it's called, contain the last 2 days, rather than the last day. That way you would move only debates at least 24 hours old off the page at midnight UTC, rather than moving all debates (including ones only 5 minutes old).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Have the "current debates" page, or whatever it's called, contain the last 2 days, rather than the last day. That way you would move only debates at least 24 hours old off the page at midnight UTC, rather than moving all debates (including ones only 5 minutes old).
That's probably the best suggestion so far, either combined with Luna's order reversal or not. The easiest way to implement this is probably simply having the current day's page transclude the previous day's one at the top (or bottom) of the nomination list, and removing that line from the previous page whenever a new page is started.
(We could maybe even wrap that line in <noinclude> tags, as a belt-and-suspenders approach to make sure we don't get huge transclusion chains even if people forget to remove it.)
You can see a similar system in use on my user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ilmari_Karonen
On 12/31/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Currently, new nominations are added to the bottom, which means people who stroll by and don't bother to scroll down fifty pages will only see the oldest nominations which are probably already filled with comments.
What say we add new nominations to the top, instead? Might get them a bit more attention.
Unless that's already been tried, and I'm silly. :p
-Luna
Luna wrote:
On 12/31/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Currently, new nominations are added to the bottom, which means people who stroll by and don't bother to scroll down fifty pages will only see the oldest nominations which are probably already filled with comments.
What say we add new nominations to the top, instead? Might get them a bit more attention.
Unless that's already been tried, and I'm silly. :p
-Luna
That's a good idea - and when you think about it the logical way to do these things. Though I can guarantee if this change is adopted, the first day it goes into effect the nominations will all end up in a jumbled heap :)
-Gurch
On 12/31/06, Gurch matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Luna wrote:
On 12/31/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Currently, new nominations are added to the bottom, which means people who stroll by and don't bother to scroll down fifty pages will only see the oldest nominations which are probably already filled with comments.
What say we add new nominations to the top, instead? Might get them a bit more attention.
Unless that's already been tried, and I'm silly. :p
-Luna
That's a good idea - and when you think about it the logical way to do these things. Though I can guarantee if this change is adopted, the first day it goes into effect the nominations will all end up in a jumbled heap :)
-Gurch _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But is that really so bad? Who cares if they're not in chronological (or reverse chronological) order? If anything, that'll just make them more likely to have an even spread of views over the times in which they were added.
Gurch wrote:
Luna wrote:
What say we add new nominations to the top, instead? Might get them a bit more attention.
That's a good idea - and when you think about it the logical way to do these things. Though I can guarantee if this change is adopted, the first day it goes into effect the nominations will all end up in a jumbled heap :)
There's a pretty simple fix that will avoid most of the confusion: just include a HTML comment at the bottom of the list saying something to the effect of "<!-- NO, you fool, add your nomination at the OTHER END! -->". (We actually have one at the top already, it just needs to be moved to the bottom and made more conspicuous.)
Though I suppose the various "AfD helper" user scripts may not notice that; it might be a good idea to go around fixing them in advance, with some conditional code so that they'll start working right as soon as the comments are changed.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I've compared the standard of some current deletion debates with some from a year back, only informally of course and without much system, but it seems to me that:
- really obvious deletions are much less common, suggesting that PROD
is doing its job
- blatant spam and band vanity is no longer a significant contributor
to AfD
- quality of debate seems higher, with more references to policy and
guidelines and much less bald !voting
- more contextual knowledge is evident now, suggesting that
categorisation may also be working as intended
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
Apply a random number generator to determine the order in which they appear each time they are downloaded.
Ec
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Apply a random number generator to determine the order in which they appear each time they are downloaded.
I suppose we could use {{CURRENTSECOND}} to transclude 1 of 60 sub-templates, which in turn contain something around 200 #ifexist: statements to transclude the various AfD sub-pages. It'd be a lot of work to set up, but it's simpler than it sounds. AfD logs would look something like this...
{{AfD Log {{CURRENTSECOND}}| |Foo |Bar |Yar |Pirates |Ninjas }}
Then the page would transclude {{AfD Log 04}} (or one of 59 other templates), which each contain a lot of this, in different orders:
{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{2}}}|{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{2}}}}}}}}} {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{3}}}|{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{3}}}}}}}}} {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}|{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}}}}}}}
Let each one take about 200-300 optional parameters, and I don't think there's much chance of an overflow.
Surely I'm missing a few things, but the general concept seems workable.
I donno if it's a good idea. Still brainstorming. "Newer noms to the top" would require a lot less overhaul, but I can see benefits from a pseudo-random arrangement such as this.
If there actually is some template that generates random numbers, somebody shoot me now. ;)
-Luna
On 01/01/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose we could use {{CURRENTSECOND}} to transclude 1 of 60 sub-templates, which in turn contain something around 200 #ifexist: statements to transclude the various AfD sub-pages. It'd be a lot of work to set up, but it's simpler than it sounds. AfD logs would look something like this...
Run it past the devs so they don't want to kill anyone for trying this.
(AFD has been problematic in the past. The old VFD, which included seven days' deletion discussions in one huge multi-megabyte HTML page, was not only a major pain in the backside for the users, it caused server performance problems all by itself. Leading to the present situation where it's broken up by days.)
I wonder if it's possible to implement the Towers of Hanoi in template code. Or Emacs. Or a wiki bot.
- d.
On 1/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/01/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose we could use {{CURRENTSECOND}} to transclude 1 of 60 sub-templates, which in turn contain something around 200 #ifexist: statements to transclude the various AfD sub-pages. It'd be a lot of work to set up, but it's simpler than it sounds. AfD logs would look something like this...
Run it past the devs so they don't want to kill anyone for trying this.
Good luck with the inclusion limit (which I believe is currently 2 MB). If you can squeeze it in, note that due to caching, it won't randomize unless you constantly purge it.
I wonder if it's possible to implement the Towers of Hanoi in template code. Or Emacs. Or a wiki bot.
All of the above, I believe, if you disable the inclusion limit (and don't mind exorbitant CPU/memory usage). Rumor has it that templates have been proven Turing-complete.
On 01/01/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
If there actually is some template that generates random numbers, somebody shoot me now. ;)
There's probably something - we have the "random" extension, which lets you use <choose> <option>Option 1</option> <option>Option 2</option> </choose> to choose something automatically. It's very popular on Uncyclopedia. See:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Fundraiser
- d.
On 02/01/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There's probably something - we have the "random" extension, which lets you use <choose> <option>Option 1</option> <option>Option 2</option> </choose> to choose something automatically.
When I say "we", I mean it exists, rather than that Wikimedia has it - I don't believe we do.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 02/01/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There's probably something - we have the "random" extension, which lets you use <choose> <option>Option 1</option> <option>Option 2</option> </choose> to choose something automatically.
Unfortunately people seem to be taking this seriously, so I'll say again, this is a RIDiculous idea, for reasons of sanity if nothing else please, please do not do it. thanks.
-Gurch