This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise "run-of-the-mill" ?
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 29/09/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise "run-of-the-mill" ?
There is very little discretion involved in A7, as long as it is done correctly. Any assertion of notability is enough to save an article, however much you may disagree with it. The only case where I can see issues is when the assertion is in the form of a statistic ("This web comic gets 17 hits a day."), is that an assertion of notability, or not? Perhaps some guidance on what to do with cases like that would be good, but otherwise, I see no problem.
From what I can tell (I don't do a lot of speedy tagging, so I could
be getting my wires crossed here) A7 refers to several specific types of articles which do not assert/verify notability. I don't really see how this is so banal, or how it could ever be fixed. Unless you want to totally eliminate notability as a valid speedy criteria, there are no better options. The categories link directly to helpful and specific types of notability requirement for which there presently are no substitutes. Judging whether something asserts notability has never been the difficult part of determining notability in my experience, it's whether or not the assertion is verifiably true.
On 9/29/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise "run-of-the-mill" ?
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/09/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should >be replaced by something with far less discretion.
You can replace it with whatever you like won't have any effect on admin actions they will just find some other rational. CSD is for the most part descriptive rather than prescriptive.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles >speedied if they are without redeeming interest.
"interest" is not a deletion or keeping criteria.
A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken
idea) and its >"assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
For the most part it can. Sure you get a few errors but given the numbers involved there will always be an issue with that.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise >"run-of-the-mill" ?
Really doesn't matter. Admins will continue to delete that class of articles whatever you call it.
On 9/29/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should >be replaced by something with far less discretion.
You can replace it with whatever you like won't have any effect on admin actions they will just find some other rational. CSD is for the most part descriptive rather than prescriptive.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles >speedied if they are without redeeming interest.
"interest" is not a deletion or keeping criteria.
A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken
idea) and its >"assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
For the most part it can. Sure you get a few errors but given the numbers involved there will always be an issue with that.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise >"run-of-the-mill" ?
Really doesn't matter. Admins will continue to delete that class of articles whatever you call it.
-- geni
I'm not sure that the problem is admins - I go through the A7 noms and delete maybe 2/3s of them, and a good chunk of those I do delete aren't A7s, but are copyvios, spam, what have you. It would be nice if new article patrollers understood the point, though.
I'm sure every admin can hash up examples of such articles - I've rejected three articles on Jamaican Federal Elections, one on a Haitian Presidental Election and one on the Cuisine of San Marino in the last two weeks or so, of the top of my head. Who's going through articles thinking "Haitian Presidential Election? Doesn't sound notable or encyclopaedic ... " ?
WilyD
On 29/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the problem is admins - I go through the A7 noms and delete maybe 2/3s of them, and a good chunk of those I do delete aren't A7s, but are copyvios, spam, what have you. It would be nice if new article patrollers understood the point, though.
See [[user talk:David Gerard]] - I'm getting responses. Some thoughtful, one seems to be upset at the very notion that I could dare hamper patrollers by asking them to, er, think, and calling this an inclusionist/deletionist war. I responded that I personally zapped over half the tagged articles I saw and that if it's not bright-line, you should in fact be filling out a proper AFD.
I'm sure every admin can hash up examples of such articles - I've rejected three articles on Jamaican Federal Elections, one on a Haitian Presidental Election and one on the Cuisine of San Marino in the last two weeks or so, of the top of my head. Who's going through articles thinking "Haitian Presidential Election? Doesn't sound notable or encyclopaedic ... " ?
Um, yeah. Times like that, gentle guidance assuming good faith ...
- d.
On 29/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the problem is admins - I go through the A7 noms and delete maybe 2/3s of them, and a good chunk of those I do delete aren't A7s, but are copyvios, spam, what have you. It would be nice if new article patrollers understood the point, though.
Admins are expected to understand. Everyone else? Not so much
I'm sure every admin can hash up examples of such articles - I've rejected three articles on Jamaican Federal Elections, one on a Haitian Presidental Election and one on the Cuisine of San Marino in the last two weeks or so, of the top of my head. Who's going through articles thinking "Haitian Presidential Election? Doesn't sound notable or encyclopaedic ... " ?
Probably not the person trying to write one sentence articles on the subject.
I'm not sure that the problem is admins - I go through the A7 noms and delete maybe 2/3s of them, and a good chunk of those I do delete aren't A7s, but are copyvios, spam, what have you. It would be nice if new article patrollers understood the point, though.
And that is why the delete button is only available to admins. If more people were capable of correctly determining whether or not an article should be speedied, more people could be given the delete button. While it would be nice if new article patrollers would tag things correctly, it's not a serious problem. The speedy deletion procedure is designed to compensate for people that don't know what is and isn't speediable by requiring an admin to make the final decision.
On 9/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that the problem is admins - I go through the A7 noms and delete maybe 2/3s of them, and a good chunk of those I do delete aren't A7s, but are copyvios, spam, what have you. It would be nice if new article patrollers understood the point, though.
And that is why the delete button is only available to admins. If more people were capable of correctly determining whether or not an article should be speedied, more people could be given the delete button. While it would be nice if new article patrollers would tag things correctly, it's not a serious problem. The speedy deletion procedure is designed to compensate for people that don't know what is and isn't speediable by requiring an admin to make the final decision.
I usually don't deal with deletion topics, so please tell me if this is already done, but could the automated tools (I'm thinking Twinkle, here) leave a note on a tagger's talk page if an admin decides that a CSD tag is in error? Erroneous CSD tags seems like a good thing to keep track of, especially compared to the stats that actually do get mentioned at RFAs (not that I'm in favor of making RFA any harder, just that it might be an indicator of judgment.)
On 30/09/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
I usually don't deal with deletion topics, so please tell me if this is already done, but could the automated tools (I'm thinking Twinkle, here) leave a note on a tagger's talk page if an admin decides that a CSD tag is in error? Erroneous CSD tags seems like a good thing to keep track of, especially compared to the stats that actually do get mentioned at RFAs (not that I'm in favor of making RFA any harder, just that it might be an indicator of judgment.)
I think that would be lovely.
- d.
Agreed. If we are concerned about misuse of A7, one way to motivate people to change would be to leave notes for the taggers (with an indelible edit summary "Improper use of A7" or some such that can't be "archived") and then make it a point of discussion at RFA. A small thing like that might leverage a big change in behavior.
Thatcher
On 9/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/09/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
I usually don't deal with deletion topics, so please tell me if this is already done, but could the automated tools (I'm thinking Twinkle, here) leave a note on a tagger's talk page if an admin decides that a CSD tag is in error? Erroneous CSD tags seems like a good thing to keep track of, especially compared to the stats that actually do get mentioned at RFAs (not that I'm in favor of making RFA any harder, just that it might be an indicator of judgment.)
I think that would be lovely.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 30/09/2007, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. If we are concerned about misuse of A7, one way to motivate people to change would be to leave notes for the taggers (with an indelible edit summary "Improper use of A7" or some such that can't be "archived") and then make it a point of discussion at RFA. A small thing like that might leverage a big change in behavior.
Thatcher
Alerting them to the existence of prod may be more effective. Part of the problem is the comparatively high amount of effort required to carry out an AFD.
On 30/09/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/09/2007, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. If we are concerned about misuse of A7, one way to motivate people to change would be to leave notes for the taggers (with an indelible edit summary "Improper use of A7" or some such that can't be "archived") and then make it a point of discussion at RFA. A small thing like that might leverage a big change in behavior.
Alerting them to the existence of prod may be more effective. Part of the problem is the comparatively high amount of effort required to carry out an AFD.
Considering most of the A7s I saw were bot-assisted and the extra labour in a proper AFD is mostly clerical, bot-assisting the AFD should be quite feasible as well.
- d.
On 9/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Considering most of the A7s I saw were bot-assisted and the extra labour in a proper AFD is mostly clerical, bot-assisting the AFD should be quite feasible as well.
Already available via WP:TW. It makes AfD entirely too easy--click a button, type your nomination reason, boom boom boom, it's all properly posted in the space of about 15 seconds.
--Darkwind
On 30/09/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Considering most of the A7s I saw were bot-assisted and the extra labour in a proper AFD is mostly clerical, bot-assisting the AFD should be quite feasible as well.
Already available via WP:TW. It makes AfD entirely too easy--click a button, type your nomination reason, boom boom boom, it's all properly posted in the space of about 15 seconds.
I'll remember that when flagging bad A7s made with TW!
- d.
Bot assisted afds are way overdue--not all of us can use the various existing programs. It should be built into WP,.
On 9/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/09/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Considering most of the A7s I saw were bot-assisted and the extra labour in a proper AFD is mostly clerical, bot-assisting the AFD should be quite feasible as well.
Already available via WP:TW. It makes AfD entirely too easy--click a button, type your nomination reason, boom boom boom, it's all properly posted in the space of about 15 seconds.
I'll remember that when flagging bad A7s made with TW!
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Bot assisted afds are way overdue--not all of us can use the various existing programs. It should be built into WP,.
The devs would likely find that suggestion amusing.
The overall significance of the English Wikipedia's "AFD" process is probably lower than you think. Our goal is to build a better encyclopedia. The programmers' goal is to build better general-purpose software for web sites.
Everything else is hoops and turnstiles, particularly this.
—C.W.
On 01/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Bot assisted afds are way overdue--not all of us can use the various existing programs. It should be built into WP,.
The devs would likely find that suggestion amusing.
The overall significance of the English Wikipedia's "AFD" process is probably lower than you think. Our goal is to build a better encyclopedia. The programmers' goal is to build better general-purpose software for web sites.
Everything else is hoops and turnstiles, particularly this.
I remember discussing this with at least one developer at some point. It should be doable in a way that doesn't hardcode the English Wikipedia's policies - or so I'm told. I wasn't convinced - I think people are so used to the policies that they don't realise when they are assuming them.
On 10/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Bot assisted afds are way overdue--not all of us can use the various existing programs. It should be built into WP,.
The devs would likely find that suggestion amusing.
The overall significance of the English Wikipedia's "AFD" process is probably lower than you think. Our goal is to build a better encyclopedia. The programmers' goal is to build better general-purpose software for web sites.
Everything else is hoops and turnstiles, particularly this.
I remember discussing this with at least one developer at some point. It should be doable in a way that doesn't hardcode the English Wikipedia's policies - or so I'm told. I wasn't convinced - I think people are so used to the policies that they don't realise when they are assuming them.
If you mean that people are so entrenched in bureaucracy that they miss the big picture, I'll agree with you on this point.
—C.W.
I remember discussing this with at least one developer at some point. It should be doable in a way that doesn't hardcode the English Wikipedia's policies - or so I'm told. I wasn't convinced - I think people are so used to the policies that they don't realise when they are assuming them.
If you mean that people are so entrenched in bureaucracy that they miss the big picture, I'll agree with you on this point.
No, that's not what I mean at all. People were talking about how to automate the deletion process and were coming up with methods that would require people to do their deletions in the same (or similar) ways as the English Wikipedia. People didn't realise that they were implicitly assuming that deletions would be taking place according to enwiki policy.
On 10/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If you mean that people are so entrenched in bureaucracy that they miss the big picture, I'll agree with you on this point.
No, that's not what I mean at all. People were talking about how to automate the deletion process and were coming up with methods that would require people to do their deletions in the same (or similar) ways as the English Wikipedia. People didn't realise that they were implicitly assuming that deletions would be taking place according to enwiki policy.
I see what you mean now. The latter might be a symptom of the same tunnel vision I was referring to.
In practice, most of the "procedure" might as well be automated already. Consider that a non-savvy user reading the fancy instruction system found on a page like [1] will probably assume that "per-page deletion polling" is a facet of the site software itself, rather than the result of the hacks upon hacks we've made to accommodate the (increasingly complex) way we do (relatively simple) things on the English Wikipedia.
I guess it just goes to show that idiot-proofing, crowd control, and instruction creep are three intimately related concepts.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Se...
—C.W.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Bot assisted afds are way overdue--not all of us can use the various existing programs. It should be built into WP,.
The devs would likely find that suggestion amusing.
The overall significance of the English Wikipedia's "AFD" process is probably lower than you think. Our goal is to build a better encyclopedia. The programmers' goal is to build better general-purpose software for web sites.
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar, even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Bot assisted afds are way overdue--not all of us can use the various existing programs. It should be built into WP,.
The devs would likely find that suggestion amusing.
The overall significance of the English Wikipedia's "AFD" process is probably lower than you think. Our goal is to build a better encyclopedia. The programmers' goal is to build better general-purpose software for web sites.
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar, even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
Probably. I imagine there's not much of a limit on what internal links you can place in the sidebar. You can also mess around with the Javascript files to mildly alter the interface; I wrote my own script to semi-automate my closing of AfDs (not that I close AfDs anymore).
Johnleemk
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar, even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and included in common.js on Commons.
We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it would be a bad idea.
—C.W.
why would it be a bad idea? Because people would delete too much? Or that they would not use the simper process of PROD as a first resort? I;m much more concerned of their using Speedy as a all-purpose resort.
On 10/1/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar, even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and included in common.js on Commons.
We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it would be a bad idea.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
why would it be a bad idea? Because people would delete too much? Or that they would not use the simper process of PROD as a first resort? I;m much more concerned of their using Speedy as a all-purpose resort.
On 10/1/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar, even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and included in common.js on Commons.
We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it would be a bad idea.
Out of curiosity... (my test MW wiki is off right now or I'd try this...)
If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event does not show up on the watchlist, correct?
I'm inclined to think that this is a bug...
It doesn't. It really isn't a bug, a watchlist is supposed to show edits made to pages, not log entries. However, I can see why you wish this feature would be added to the watchlist, but it's not a bug. :-)
On 10/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
why would it be a bad idea? Because people would delete too much? Or that they would not use the simper process of PROD as a first resort? I;m much more concerned of their using Speedy as a all-purpose resort.
On 10/1/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the
sidebar,
even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and included in common.js on Commons.
We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it would be a bad idea.
Out of curiosity... (my test MW wiki is off right now or I'd try this...)
If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event does not show up on the watchlist, correct?
I'm inclined to think that this is a bug...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One admittedly clumsy way to handle this is to make a separate user subpage with links to the articles you want to track, preferably using the [[:article]] code with the colon so the backlink is not made, and to check it regularly for links newly going red.
On 10/1/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't. It really isn't a bug, a watchlist is supposed to show edits made to pages, not log entries. However, I can see why you wish this feature would be added to the watchlist, but it's not a bug. :-)
On 10/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
why would it be a bad idea? Because people would delete too much? Or that they would not use the simper process of PROD as a first resort? I;m much more concerned of their using Speedy as a all-purpose resort.
On 10/1/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the
sidebar,
even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and included in common.js on Commons.
We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it would be a bad idea.
Out of curiosity... (my test MW wiki is off right now or I'd try this...)
If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event does not show up on the watchlist, correct?
I'm inclined to think that this is a bug...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
One admittedly clumsy way to handle this is to make a separate user subpage with links to the articles you want to track, preferably using the [[:article]] code with the colon so the backlink is not made, and to check it regularly for links newly going red.
On 10/1/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't. It really isn't a bug, a watchlist is supposed to show edits made to pages, not log entries. However, I can see why you wish this feature would be added to the watchlist, but it's not a bug. :-)
On 10/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
why would it be a bad idea? Because people would delete too much? Or that they would not use the simper process of PROD as a first resort? I;m much more concerned of their using Speedy as a all-purpose resort.
On 10/1/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the
sidebar,
even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and included in common.js on Commons.
We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it would be a bad idea.
Out of curiosity... (my test MW wiki is off right now or I'd try this...)
If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event does not show up on the watchlist, correct?
I'm inclined to think that this is a bug...
Yes, I can see several ways around it. That's the one that doesn't take any programming on my part to implement, though I would probably want to script up something to scrape my watchlist and auto-create the separate pages [[:page]] list.
I think I'll call putting the deletes in the main watchlist a feature request for the main code, though...
On 10/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Out of curiosity... (my test MW wiki is off right now or I'd try this...)
If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event does not show up on the watchlist, correct?
I'm inclined to think that this is a bug...
Yes, I can see several ways around it. That's the one that doesn't take any programming on my part to implement, though I would probably want to script up something to scrape my watchlist and auto-create the separate pages [[:page]] list.
Wait, you want to create a separate page to see if items in your watchlist are red? Just use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&action=edit
On 10/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Out of curiosity... (my test MW wiki is off right now or I'd try this...)
If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event does not show up on the watchlist, correct?
I'm inclined to think that this is a bug...
Yes, I can see several ways around it. That's the one that doesn't take any programming on my part to implement, though I would probably want to script up something to scrape my watchlist and auto-create the separate pages [[:page]] list.
Wait, you want to create a separate page to see if items in your watchlist are red? Just use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&action=edit
Ah... ok. Yeah. Much simpler!
Thanks.
On 10/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I can see several ways around it. That's the one that doesn't take any programming on my part to implement, though I would probably want to script up something to scrape my watchlist and auto-create the separate pages [[:page]] list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&action=raw is also useful.
—C.W.
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
One admittedly clumsy way to handle this is to make a separate user subpage with links to the articles you want to track, preferably using the [[:article]] code with the colon so the backlink is not made, and to check it regularly for links newly going red.
Using a colon does not prevent your sandbox from appearing in "whatlinkshere" for article(s) being linked to, if that's what you mean. The only way to completely avoid this is to format it as an external link (full url) but this will not change color according to whether the page exists.
Probably the most useful and discrete way to do this is to paste your list of [[linked title]]s somewhere, save it, blank the page, save it again, then keep handy the URL of the revision prior to blanking.
—C.W.
On 04/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Probably the most useful and discrete way to do this is to paste your list of [[linked title]]s somewhere, save it, blank the page, save it again, then keep handy the URL of the revision prior to blanking.
Yes, that's a fairly elegant solution, and I've seen it recommended before. If you want to be completely discreet about it, then you can always save the list of linked pagenames offline, then paste it into an edit box and *preview*, rather than save, when you want to consult it...
(Other tricks this is handy for - when creating an article, write a list of all the variant names for it at the bottom, preview, create redirects from all those handy redlinks, delete the redlinks from the article, save, and you're all done.)
On 10/4/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(Other tricks this is handy for - when creating an article, write a list of all the variant names for it at the bottom, preview, create redirects from all those handy redlinks, delete the redlinks from the article, save, and you're all done.)
Of course, these can be automated using a very hack-ish combination of "&preload=", "&autoedit", wgPageName, and "&autoclick", which puts us right back where we started, topic-wise.
—C.W.
On 02/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event does not show up on the watchlist, correct?
I'm inclined to think that this is a bug...
Yes, watchlisting only shows edits to a page, not "non-edit actions" (delete, move, protect)
On 10/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, watchlisting only shows edits to a page, not "non-edit actions" (delete, move, protect)
Except a protect/unprotect action leaves a dummy edit in the history, and quite possibly does appear in the watchlist. If somebody could pick some page that's likely to be on my watchlist, and indefinitely protect it, I'll know for sure.
—C.W.
On 10/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar, even when logged out. Is this all done locally?
That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and included in common.js on Commons.
We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it would be a bad idea.
why would it be a bad idea? Because people would delete too much? Or that they would not use the simper process of PROD as a first resort? I;m much more concerned of their using Speedy as a all-purpose resort.
I think if we've really reached the point where we'd willingly make it easier for a dissatisfied newcomer to nominate something for deletion (rather than editing it first and trying to make it better), then we are catering to the wrong mentality and we might as well just give up now.
—C.W.
I usually don't deal with deletion topics, so please tell me if this is already done, but could the automated tools (I'm thinking Twinkle, here) leave a note on a tagger's talk page if an admin decides that a CSD tag is in error? Erroneous CSD tags seems like a good thing to keep track of, especially compared to the stats that actually do get mentioned at RFAs (not that I'm in favor of making RFA any harder, just that it might be an indicator of judgment.)
Good idea.
Is there anything wrong with setting a time limit of say, 60 minutes, on speedy deletions, so an article can be tagged, but the author has another 60 minutes to finish editing the article, and if it's still not notable after they've been working on it, it can go. Obviously, the dubious attack crap and gibberish would be exempt, but everything else would be covered.
On 29/09/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise "run-of-the-mill" ?
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 30/09/2007, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Is there anything wrong with setting a time limit of say, 60 minutes, on speedy deletions, so an article can be tagged, but the author has another 60 minutes to finish editing the article, and if it's still not notable after they've been working on it, it can go. Obviously, the dubious attack crap and gibberish would be exempt, but everything else would be covered.
But this cruft needs to be deleted from Wikipedia right away!!! Immediately, I tell you!!!!!
:-)
I once suggested a 24 hour grace period for new articles, after dealing with several improper A7 requests that had the effect of driving away the article's creators. I was told that it would be "too hard" for the recent change/recent page patrol to keep track of new articles for 24 hours to see if they improved.
Can we modify A7 to work like unsourced images? Drop on a template that says, "This article may not meet guidelines and may be deleted after 48 hours unless these concerns are addressed; use read the [[rules]] and use {{help me}} for advice."
Thatcher
On 9/29/07, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Is there anything wrong with setting a time limit of say, 60 minutes, on speedy deletions, so an article can be tagged, but the author has another 60 minutes to finish editing the article, and if it's still not notable after they've been working on it, it can go. Obviously, the dubious attack crap and gibberish would be exempt, but everything else would be covered.
On 9/29/07, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
... but the author has another 60 minutes to finish editing the article, and if it's still not notable...
Unclear on how [a subject becomes] "notable" in 60 minutes, unless of course it's being interviewed by Mike Wallace.[1]
But even then, "noted" would be likely be a more fitting adjective. If anybody can potentially be "noted"[2], then "notability" is more or less a meaningless term. Bandy it about and I'll probably advise you to iron it onto your shirt and hang it from the rafters.[3]
The real deciding factor should be whether the author provided sources with which to verify the existing content, and/or from which to gather information for additional content. Yet there is no CSD code for this, nor does it carry much, if any, weight in a typical AFD discussion.
Perhaps we have a more serious problem.
—C.W.
[1] This would satisfy WP:WARHOL fourfold. [2] And believe me, anybody can potentially be "noted". [3] Or to just shove it up your ass, whatever causes greater anguish.
On 01/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lots of A7-tagged articles assert notability. A7 in practice `means "I don't like it."
- d.
On 01/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lots of A7-tagged articles assert notability. A7 in practice `means "I don't like it."
A7-tagged, certainly, but how about A7-deleted? Non-admins don't (generally) know how to do admin work. If they did, they'd be admins. Speedy deletions are an admin task, so it is unreasonable to expect non-admins to be able to do it correctly. (Many can, certainly, but also, many can't.)
On 10/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Non-admins don't (generally) know how to do admin work. If they did, they'd be admins.
Hopefully, after a bit of re-reading, you can see how it might not always, or hardly ever, be that simple.
—C.W.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 01/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lots of A7-tagged articles assert notability. A7 in practice `means "I don't like it."
A7-tagged, certainly, but how about A7-deleted? Non-admins don't (generally) know how to do admin work. If they did, they'd be admins. Speedy deletions are an admin task, so it is unreasonable to expect non-admins to be able to do it correctly. (Many can, certainly, but also, many can't.)
Wow! What a series of non-sequiturs. I'm not an admin after 5 1/2 years because I have never sought the power. Deletion is an admin task, but it doesn't exactly take a lot of training to push the right keys to delete something. If you add in the social and equitable aspects to deletions it becomes clear that a lot of admins don't know how to do it correctly either.
Ec
A7-tagged, certainly, but how about A7-deleted? Non-admins don't (generally) know how to do admin work. If they did, they'd be admins. Speedy deletions are an admin task, so it is unreasonable to expect non-admins to be able to do it correctly. (Many can, certainly, but also, many can't.)
Wow! What a series of non-sequiturs. I'm not an admin after 5 1/2 years because I have never sought the power. Deletion is an admin task, but it doesn't exactly take a lot of training to push the right keys to delete something. If you add in the social and equitable aspects to deletions it becomes clear that a lot of admins don't know how to do it correctly either.
The word "generally" means "in most cases". I know there are exceptions, but *in general* people who are not admins are not admins because they are not able to be.
The skill required to be an admin is not a technical ability to delete articles - that's easy, you just click "delete", give a reason, and click "submit". It's the ability to work out which articles should be deleted. It is that which we don't trust non-admins to be able to do.
On 10/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lots of A7-tagged articles assert notability. A7 in practice `means "I don't like it."
A7-tagged, certainly, but how about A7-deleted?
Yep, those too.
On 01/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lots of A7-tagged articles assert notability. A7 in practice `means "I don't like it."
A7-tagged, certainly, but how about A7-deleted? Non-admins don't (generally) know how to do admin work. If they did, they'd be admins.
There are no shortage of admins who run bot-assisted deletion tools and uncritically accept any tag placed on an article as valid without pausing to read, which effectively means that a bad tag won't get challenged.
One, who I remember writing to this very mailing list about almost exactly ten months ago, was running at three deletions a minute for over an hour with something like a 4% rejection rate. There's got to be false positives there, and no shortage of them...
There are no shortage of admins who run bot-assisted deletion tools and uncritically accept any tag placed on an article as valid without pausing to read, which effectively means that a bad tag won't get challenged.
One, who I remember writing to this very mailing list about almost exactly ten months ago, was running at three deletions a minute for over an hour with something like a 4% rejection rate. There's got to be false positives there, and no shortage of them...
I remember that. There was much outrage and, as far as I know, the admin in question stopped (or was stopped). Do you know of anyone doing it since? If so, you need to report them and get them desysopped.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Unclear on how [a subject becomes] "notable" in 60 minutes, unless of course it's being interviewed by Mike Wallace.[1]
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lack of assertion of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of assertion of *importance* is. What is an assertion of notability anyway? "Multiple independent reliable sources discuss Joe"?
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Unclear on how [a subject becomes] "notable" in 60 minutes, unless of course it's being interviewed by Mike Wallace.[1]
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lack of assertion of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of assertion of *importance* is.
True. But I thought lack of importance wasn't a valid reason for nonspeedy deletion. If so, that's pretty weird.
What is an assertion of notability anyway? "Multiple independent reliable sources discuss Joe"?
What's an assertion of importance? "Joe is important"?
On 10/1/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/1/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Unclear on how [a subject becomes] "notable" in 60 minutes, unless of course it's being interviewed by Mike Wallace.[1]
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lack of assertion of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of assertion of *importance* is.
True. But I thought lack of importance wasn't a valid reason for nonspeedy deletion. If so, that's pretty weird.
What is an assertion of notability anyway? "Multiple independent reliable sources discuss Joe"?
What's an assertion of importance? "Joe is important"?
Roughly speaking, you should apply A7 to articles that really have no hope of ever being encyclopaedia articles, or to articles that are so contextless you can't tell if they ever have such home.
"Johnny Nobody is a snowplow driver from Assbackwards, Ontario." should be deleted per A7 "Diunoctquadium is an element that has never existed. It has never been the subject of literature (either peer reviewed or otherwise)." should be deleted per A7 "Russia is a big country in Europe and Asia." should not be deleted per A7
Cheers WilyD
Roughly speaking, you should apply A7 to articles that really have no hope of ever being encyclopaedia articles, or to articles that are so contextless you can't tell if they ever have such home.
A7 has nothing to do with context. There is another criterion (don't remember the number) that deals precisely with that.
On 10/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Roughly speaking, you should apply A7 to articles that really have no hope of ever being encyclopaedia articles, or to articles that are so contextless you can't tell if they ever have such home.
A7 has nothing to do with context. There is another criterion (don't remember the number) that deals precisely with that.
Err, yes, that's A1 - although in practice the two overlap a lot (a contextless article makes it basically impossible to assert importance. I guess "Johnny Nobody was the single most influential person in his field of work" might fail A1 and not A7.
Sorry about the mistake ...
WilyD
You know, this does not match any of the A7 categories. at WP:CSD. It's not a " real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content"; G1 is what you want for this, or --preferably -- G2 test.
"Diunoctquadium is an element that has never existed. It has never been the subject of literature (either peer reviewed or otherwise)." should be deleted per A7 > Cheers WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/10/2007, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Unclear on how [a subject becomes] "notable" in 60 minutes, unless of course it's being interviewed by Mike Wallace.[1]
Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.
Lack of assertion of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of assertion of *importance* is. What is an assertion of notability anyway? "Multiple independent reliable sources discuss Joe"?
More "we would expect Multiple independent reliable sources to discuss Joe"
So "joe was the congress being for district X between 1800 and 1809" would probably be ok
"Joe was the defeated candidate in a local council election in 1907" less so.
On 9/29/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This is a new thread to discuss CSD A7.
The Category for Speedy Deletion A7 is a menace. It is far too open to misuse. It should be replaced by something with far less discretion.
My question is: we need a banality threshold, but which one? We do need articles speedied if they are without redeeming interest. A7 is broken, and builds on the idea that notability (another broken idea) and its "assertion" can be properly judged by individuals.
What is there that can be put in its place? How can we better characterise "run-of-the-mill" ?
In my experience, the biggest problems with notability deletions (both A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel blindsided by them. The interface doesn't do an adequate job of making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why the topic is significant).
In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability requirements). That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware of that ahead of time. Our standards have changed so much over the last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
Sage Ross wrote:
In my experience, the biggest problems with notability deletions (both A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel blindsided by them. The interface doesn't do an adequate job of making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why the topic is significant).
In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability requirements). That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware of that ahead of time. Our standards have changed so much over the last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.
I don't think that "heavier-handed" is appropriate. Nevertheless it should be more informative, and relevant to what the newbie has actually done. If it's only that references are missing that should be a specific request, and providing those references would immediately void the AfD. Many of the AfD notices give the impression that they have been put there by an ignorant robot.
Ec
On 01/10/2007, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience, the biggest problems with notability deletions (both A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel blindsided by them. The interface doesn't do an adequate job of making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why the topic is significant). In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability requirements). That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware of that ahead of time. Our standards have changed so much over the last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.
Your task:
1. Write this interface. 2. People don't read. How few words can you put it in? Can you be as harsh as the new articles page for IPs on Meta?
- d.
On 10/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
In my experience, the biggest problems with notability deletions (both A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel blindsided by them. The interface doesn't do an adequate job of making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why the topic is significant). In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability requirements). That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware of that ahead of time. Our standards have changed so much over the last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.
Your task:
- Write this interface.
- People don't read. How few words can you put it in? Can you be as
harsh as the new articles page for IPs on Meta?
I'll try to mock something up, but something more like the Meta interface (is there a difference between the regular and IP versions?) would be a step forward.
One possibility would be to add the must-read text to the edit box itself, along the lines of the preloaded template for the featured picture candidate interface http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AFPCno... (and have this be a preference that users can turn off, but default on).
People may not read much, but reading rates will certainly go up if the text can be passively ignored (i.e., if they have to delete it to write their article).
-Sage