On 29/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In an effort to hold back the tide of goldfarming speedy-tagging, I've been going to these page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Importance_or_significance_not_asserte...
and removing clearly bogus speedy tags, and leaving a commenter on the tagger's page something like:
==Clearly erroneous A7==
The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of [http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-artic... public] [http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/ concern] and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - ~~~~
- d.
On 29/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
[URL correction]
Indeed, I just spotted David doing the rounds. Then I closed my first AfD. Gotta love the power tools. ("This is my mop. There are many like it, but this one is mine!")
On 29/09/2007, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 29/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
[URL correction]
Indeed, I just spotted David doing the rounds. Then I closed my first AfD. Gotta love the power tools. ("This is my mop. There are many like it, but this one is mine!")
I must admit, I can see why people go on speedy patrol. It is quite nice to zap some utterly worthless crap.
- d.
On 9/29/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
("This is my mop. There are many like it, but this one is mine!")
This is the mop, this is your brain on the mop, any questions?
On 9/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
In an effort to hold back the tide of goldfarming speedy-tagging, I've been going to these page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Importance_or_significance_not_asserte...
and removing clearly bogus speedy tags, and leaving a commenter on the tagger's page something like:
==Clearly erroneous A7==
The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of [
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-artic...
public] [
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/
concern] and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - ~~~~
I dunno, from my experience, the most abused tag was the one for no context - it seemed to be used as an IDONTLIKEIT or IDONTUNDERSTANDIT or a "too short" tag, regardless of whether the article gave sufficient context. As just one example, I once saw a two-sentence stub on a mayor of New York City being tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it gave insufficient context, even though it was pretty damn clear what the article was about.
From my experience, idiots abusing this tag would probably be an equal, if
not greater, problem.
Johnleemk
On 9/29/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I dunno, from my experience, the most abused tag was the one for no context
- it seemed to be used as an IDONTLIKEIT or IDONTUNDERSTANDIT or a "too
short" tag, regardless of whether the article gave sufficient context. As just one example, I once saw a two-sentence stub on a mayor of New York City being tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it gave insufficient context, even though it was pretty damn clear what the article was about. From my experience, idiots abusing this tag would probably be an equal, if not greater, problem.
Part of the problem is the template name: db-empty. I think this makes people think of 'too short'. The criterion also only applies to articles, not categories, templates, etc etc.
-Matt
On 9/29/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I dunno, from my experience, the most abused tag was the one for no context
- it seemed to be used as an IDONTLIKEIT or IDONTUNDERSTANDIT or a "too
short" tag, regardless of whether the article gave sufficient context. As just one example, I once saw a two-sentence stub on a mayor of New York City being tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it gave insufficient context, even though it was pretty damn clear what the article was about. From my experience, idiots abusing this tag would probably be an equal, if not greater, problem.
What a coincidence; David's first message just led to me rescuing a one-sentence article on a mayor of New York City which had been tagged {{db-bio}}. Clearly mayors of New York as a class have never done anything notable, and therefore are just fair game for deletion these days </snark>
Michael Noda schreef:
What a coincidence; David's first message just led to me rescuing a one-sentence article on a mayor of New York City which had been tagged {{db-bio}}. Clearly mayors of New York as a class have never done anything notable, and therefore are just fair game for deletion these days </snark>
That article consists of nothing but information. Please see [[WP:NOT]]: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".
(Yes, someone tried that with one of my articles. No, I was not happy about that.)
Eugene
That article consists of nothing but information. Please see [[WP:NOT]]: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".
(Yes, someone tried that with one of my articles. No, I was not happy about that.)
Cross out the words you don't like and policy can support anything you want it to...
On 9/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Michael Noda schreef:
What a coincidence; David's first message just led to me rescuing a one-sentence article on a mayor of New York City which had been tagged {{db-bio}}. Clearly mayors of New York as a class have never done anything notable, and therefore are just fair game for deletion these days </snark>
That article consists of nothing but information. Please see [[WP:NOT]]: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".
(Yes, someone tried that with one of my articles. No, I was not happy about that.)
And you didn't indef him as a troll?
Michael Noda wrote:
What a coincidence; David's first message just led to me rescuing a one-sentence article on a mayor of New York City which had been tagged {{db-bio}}. Clearly mayors of New York as a class have never done anything notable, and therefore are just fair game for deletion these days </snark>
I had one recently where I was reading a news article that mentioned a Chinese company, and gave only one bit of information about the company explaining why it was significant. I wanted to know more about the company than just that, but what appeared to be the company's homepage was entirely in Chinese. So I created a stub article consisting of just that one bit of information about why it was significant. My hope was that others would fill in the rest later. I've done this before and it's worked quite well.
{{db-inc}}, "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." Sigh.
I undeleted it and reformatted the article so that it _looked_ "more complete" - gave it a references section and an inline reference to that news article, added some pointless wikilinks, and mentioned one of their products (though the product itself doesn't have a Wikipedia page). That seems to have been sufficient for it to be kept this time.
On 30/09/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I undeleted it and reformatted the article so that it _looked_ "more complete" - gave it a references section and an inline reference to that news article, added some pointless wikilinks, and mentioned one of their products (though the product itself doesn't have a Wikipedia page). That seems to have been sufficient for it to be kept this time.
So you turned a substub into a stub? It is to be expected that that would improve it's survival chances.
geni wrote:
On 30/09/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I undeleted it and reformatted the article so that it _looked_ "more complete" - gave it a references section and an inline reference to that news article, added some pointless wikilinks, and mentioned one of their products (though the product itself doesn't have a Wikipedia page). That seems to have been sufficient for it to be kept this time.
So you turned a substub into a stub? It is to be expected that that would improve it's survival chances.
Not really, I just prettied it up a bit. IMO anyway - I've never been clear on the substub/stub distinction, or why substubs are bad and stubs are good.
Not really, I just prettied it up a bit. IMO anyway - I've never been clear on the substub/stub distinction, or why substubs are bad and stubs are good.
I think the distinction is that a stub contains enough to be useful for researching more. A substub lacks the context needed for someone unfamiliar with the topic to be able to find anything more about it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Not really, I just prettied it up a bit. IMO anyway - I've never been clear on the substub/stub distinction, or why substubs are bad and stubs are good.
I think the distinction is that a stub contains enough to be useful for researching more. A substub lacks the context needed for someone unfamiliar with the topic to be able to find anything more about it.
In that case it was never a substub to begin with.