geni wrote:
Does "the entire world does not have broadband" mean anything to you? Ok so 32 is probably a little low for an article size limit but 40+ and popular culture/trivia are second on my list of things to kill
You mentioned the Arb Com as someone to deal with this sort of thing. I suggest you check the case of Robert the Bruce, where systematic removal of verifiable information from articles was considered the most heinous of his offences.
What on Earth do you think you're doing? Spin it out to a separate article if its presence offends your sense of order so grievously.
- d.
On 11/15/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Does "the entire world does not have broadband" mean anything to you? Ok so 32 is probably a little low for an article size limit but 40+ and popular culture/trivia are second on my list of things to kill
You mentioned the Arb Com as someone to deal with this sort of thing. I suggest you check the case of Robert the Bruce, where systematic removal of verifiable information from articles was considered the most heinous of his offences.
What on Earth do you think you're doing? Spin it out to a separate article if its presence offends your sense of order so grievously.
- d.
If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
Lets consdir the situation:
The problem: This article is to big and there is no obvious split Solution. Remove stuff while doing the minium posible damage to the article.
That tends to result in the popular culture/trivia section being the first to go.
-- geni
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
Lets consdir the situation:
The problem: This article is to big and there is no obvious split Solution. Remove stuff while doing the minium posible damage to the article.
That tends to result in the popular culture/trivia section being the first to go.
Trivia sections should not exist for their own sake. If there is no way to work the facts into the text of the article, it is likely enough the writer showing off that they knew something or a newbie thinking this is a fan site. The details are usually irrelevant (cf. edit war over mention of Abraham Lincoln in [[Charles Darwin]]), and it improves the quality of the articles to take them out.
See also: Editor's Barnstar.
Sam
On 11/15/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Trivia sections should not exist for their own sake. If there is no way to work the facts into the text of the article, it is likely enough the writer showing off that they knew something or a newbie thinking this is a fan site. The details are usually irrelevant (cf. edit war over mention of Abraham Lincoln in [[Charles Darwin]]), and it improves the quality of the articles to take them out.
Many times, the trivia belongs elsewhere - not deleted. Though often some rigorous editing will get such a section reading much better.
-Matt
On 11/16/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Many times, the trivia belongs elsewhere - not deleted. Though often some rigorous editing will get such a section reading much better.
Quite. The point is that trivia sections in themselves (rather than the facts they contain) are fairly worthless.
Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/16/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Many times, the trivia belongs elsewhere - not deleted. Though often some rigorous editing will get such a section reading much better.
Quite. The point is that trivia sections in themselves (rather than the facts they contain) are fairly worthless.
What's your basis for saying that they are worthless? Putting them in a separate "fun stuff" section makes it clear that these are not the most "important" facts about the subject.
Ec
On 11/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What's your basis for saying that they are worthless? Putting them in a separate "fun stuff" section makes it clear that these are not the most "important" facts about the subject.
We are an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Almost always, these points bear no relation to the rest of the article, are unsourced, and make the article read badly. They are a net loss to the encyclopaedia.
The facts therein can almost always be written into the text of the article. If they can't, the fact is almost certainly too irrelevant to mention.
Sam
To interject (apoligies), sometimes there will be interesting information to note, for example in a movie like [[Who Framed Roger Rabbit]], that doesn't really belong anywhere except in a trivia section of some kind (the themes and how they relate ot the real life streetcar vs. freeway controversy, the Jessica Rabbit nudity controvery, that sort of thing. None of those deserve their own section, but they can be grouped together in a trivia section.
As far as Wikipedia not being a fan site, of course it's not, but unfortuntely many people think it is or feel that it is. That's why we have endless coverage on Star Wars, Star Trek, and the Simpsons,and articles on all the characters from Mariah Carey's "Glitter". AfD is flawed, because if you suggest cutting any of this stuff down, merging, or whatever, little Wikipedia cliques pop up and prevent anything from being done.
-b.
On 11/17/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What's your basis for saying that they are worthless? Putting them in a separate "fun stuff" section makes it clear that these are not the most "important" facts about the subject.
We are an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Almost always, these points bear no relation to the rest of the article, are unsourced, and make the article read badly. They are a net loss to the encyclopaedia.
The facts therein can almost always be written into the text of the article. If they can't, the fact is almost certainly too irrelevant to mention.
Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
AfD is flawed, because if you suggest cutting any of this stuff down, merging, or whatever, little Wikipedia cliques pop up and prevent anything from being done.
Those annoying people who insist on pointing out that there is no consensus for deletion rampages sure are killjoys, aren't they? Gosh darn them to heck!
Sean Barrett wrote
AfD is flawed, because if you suggest cutting any of this stuff down, merging, or whatever, little Wikipedia cliques pop up and prevent anything from being done.
Those annoying people who insist on pointing out that there is no consensus for deletion rampages sure are killjoys, aren't they? Gosh darn them to heck!
I'm sure there is plenty that ought to be merged, though. Pending that, the important thing is that Star Trek pages (for example) get categorised properly.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote
AfD is flawed, because if you suggest cutting any of this stuff down, merging, or whatever, little Wikipedia cliques pop up and prevent anything from being done.
Those annoying people who insist on pointing out that there is no consensus for deletion rampages sure are killjoys, aren't they? Gosh darn them to heck!
I'm sure there is plenty that ought to be merged, though. Pending that, the important thing is that Star Trek pages (for example) get categorised properly.
AfD has nothing to do with merging, though, except that it's often recommended as part of a keep vote for something to do with the article after its AfD listing is finished. Anyone can merge an article any time without going to AfD to get "permission" about it. I've merged plenty of articles myself that way.
On 11/19/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
AfD has nothing to do with merging, though, except that it's often recommended as part of a keep vote for something to do with the article after its AfD listing is finished. Anyone can merge an article any time without going to AfD to get "permission" about it. I've merged plenty of articles myself that way.
The logical conclusion of this is that merge votes are actually votes to keep. That is not true. Neither are they votes to delete. They are votes to merge, and neither side may claim them as their own.
If we have to have sides, which it seems we do.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/19/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
AfD has nothing to do with merging, though, except that it's often recommended as part of a keep vote for something to do with the article after its AfD listing is finished. Anyone can merge an article any time without going to AfD to get "permission" about it. I've merged plenty of articles myself that way.
The logical conclusion of this is that merge votes are actually votes to keep. That is not true.
Isn't it? If an article gets one third "keep" votes, one third "merge" votes, and one third "delete" votes, the article gets kept. Even if an article gets 100% merge votes, it's still "kept" - the old title gets turned into a redirect and the information that was there gets moved into an existing article the redirect points to. And this isn't a binding forever and ever result like "delete" is, either, so the material could eventually get split back out and moved to the old title again one day if it grows enough to warrant it. I myself can think of two cases where I merged articles after an AfD, complaints arose from people who didn't like the resulting merged article, so I split the material back out again to the original location and that was that.
I see "merge" as a vote to keep accompanied by a recommendation for how to clean up the kept article afterward.
On 11/19/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Isn't it? If an article gets one third "keep" votes, one third "merge" votes, and one third "delete" votes, the article gets kept. Even if an article gets 100% merge votes, it's still "kept" - the old title gets turned into a redirect and the information that was there gets moved into an existing article the redirect points to. And this isn't a binding forever and ever result like "delete" is, either, so the material could eventually get split back out and moved to the old title again one day if it grows enough to warrant it. I myself can think of two cases where I merged articles after an AfD, complaints arose from people who didn't like the resulting merged article, so I split the material back out again to the original location and that was that.
I see "merge" as a vote to keep accompanied by a recommendation for how to clean up the kept article afterward.
Merge is a vote to merge. I don't see putting words into nominators' mouths as acceptable. If people vote merge, they aren't necessarily giving anyone permission to enterpret their vote in any other way.
So don't.
-- Sam
On 11/19/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Merge is a vote to merge. I don't see putting words into nominators' mouths as acceptable.
People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the information must be kept. A merge can be undone by any editor, resulting in the status quo ante. It follows that a merge is a keep by another name. it's merely an editing operation and one that can be (and sometimes is) performed by a non-admin editor after an AfD close.
On 11/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the information must be kept. A merge can be undone by any editor, resulting in the status quo ante. It follows that a merge is a keep by another name. it's merely an editing operation and one that can be (and sometimes is) performed by a non-admin editor after an AfD close.
That is still putting things into people's mouths. If someone wants a keep, let them say so. It is a sad reflection of the inclusionist/deletionist debate that each "side" considers a merge vote "theirs".
-- Sam
everybody considers a merge vote as a de-facto keep vote, because thats what the rules say. If they think otherwise they are mistaken.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/19/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the information must be kept. A merge can be undone by any editor, resulting in the status quo ante. It follows that a merge is a keep by another name. it's merely an editing operation and one that can be (and sometimes is) performed by a non-admin editor after an AfD close.
That is still putting things into people's mouths. If someone wants a keep, let them say so. It is a sad reflection of the inclusionist/deletionist debate that each "side" considers a merge vote "theirs".
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
everybody considers a merge vote as a de-facto keep vote, because thats what the rules say. If they think otherwise they are mistaken.
Please cite this rule and tell me which everyone thinks this. I had thought "everybody" meant that all the members of a community, or at least a very large supermajority. Once again, I fear you are moulding the facts until they become *your* facts.
The rules do *not* say that merge == keep.
-- Sam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#What_to_do_with_a_pro...
Btw, "once again"? Wtf, I don't even know you...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#What_to_do_with_a_pro...
Btw, "once again"? Wtf, I don't even know you...
Jack (Sam Spade)
I have absolutely no idea what that link is supposed to demonstrate. It does not concern voters; it concerns nominators.
As for the "once again", it just happens that I can read, and make use of this ability.
-- Sam
G'day Sam,
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
everybody considers a merge vote as a de-facto keep vote, because thats what the rules say. If they think otherwise they are mistaken.
Please cite this rule and tell me which everyone thinks this. I had thought "everybody" meant that all the members of a community, or at least a very large supermajority. Once again, I fear you are moulding the facts until they become *your* facts.
The rules do *not* say that merge == keep.
I think it depends whether you look at it from a content- or page-based POV. Those who want merges generally want the content kept, so they can't be considered fans of deletion. However, they certainly don't want the page kept (indeed, some will even ask for the article to be deleted, rather than left as a redirect ... presumably this will involve some ultra-complicated wacky history merge thing).
It's not accurate to say that merge == keep *or* that merge == delete. Merge == merge. Fortunately, it's usually the people pushing an "inclusionist" or "deletionist" view that take the "merges should be reinterpreted" line, and not the closing admins.
In any case, at the end of the day, it's just an article on a website (albeit, a super-mega-happy-awesome website). I'm not going to lose any sleep over a page being kept, deleted, merged, BJOADNed, or anything else (well, I might get upset if [[Lang Hancock]] is deleted ...).
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
It's not accurate to say that merge == keep *or* that merge == delete. Merge == merge. Fortunately, it's usually the people pushing an "inclusionist" or "deletionist" view that take the "merges should be reinterpreted" line, and not the closing admins.
They do have to interpret it one way or the other, though, since except in the rare case of history merges it comes down to a binary decision of either pressing the "delete" link or _not_ pressing the "delete" link. Merge votes push the result one way or the other, don't they?
Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes through differing interpretations of exactly what is meant by "keeping" an article or "deleting" it? It seems like a very black-and-white situation to me.
G'day Bryan,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
It's not accurate to say that merge == keep *or* that merge == delete. Merge == merge. Fortunately, it's usually the people pushing an "inclusionist" or "deletionist" view that take the "merges should be reinterpreted" line, and not the closing admins.
They do have to interpret it one way or the other, though, since except in the rare case of history merges it comes down to a binary decision of either pressing the "delete" link or _not_ pressing the "delete" link. Merge votes push the result one way or the other, don't they?
Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes through differing interpretations of exactly what is meant by "keeping" an article or "deleting" it? It seems like a very black-and-white situation to me.
Worl, ideally, if an admin closes '''merge''', she'd either a) do the merge herself, or b) tag both articles for merging
Perhaps that's too much effort, I dunno. I'm not an admin. I know I haven't done very many merges off my own bat, too.
With "vote" interpretation, obviously if one "merge vote" was the difference between keeping and deleting, it'd be a no consensus keep (er, I hope). That doesn't mean that "merge" is being interpreted as "keep", it just means that there's no consensus to delete outright.
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes through differing interpretations of exactly what is meant by "keeping" an article or "deleting" it? It seems like a very black-and-white situation to me.
With "vote" interpretation, obviously if one "merge vote" was the difference between keeping and deleting, it'd be a no consensus keep (er, I hope). That doesn't mean that "merge" is being interpreted as "keep", it just means that there's no consensus to delete outright.
That looks like a different premise contributing to our disagreement, then, because I'd count that as "keeping" the article and therefore as the merge vote being interpreted as "keep". A vote that wasn't interpreted as either keep or delete would just be equivalent to a "comment" or somesuch.
(swapping the order of your comments here, since I wanted to respond to the more fundamental one first)
Worl, ideally, if an admin closes '''merge''', she'd either a) do the merge herself, or b) tag both articles for merging
Perhaps that's too much effort, I dunno. I'm not an admin. I know I haven't done very many merges off my own bat, too.
Ideally, sure, but I wouldn't necessarily consider this to be an official part of "closing" the AfD. Merging articles is in the same class of actions as fixing spellings or reorganizing paragraphs within a page, a general editing task that doesn't require the sort of rigid officialism that deletion has wound up needing. I've done plenty of merges on my own when I stumble across pages that I think need it, and ideally pages that needed merging would never be listed on AfD in the first place since that's explicitly mentioned in the deletion guidelines as something that doesn't warrant AfD.
On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
That looks like a different premise contributing to our disagreement, then, because I'd count that as "keeping" the article and therefore as the merge vote being interpreted as "keep". A vote that wasn't interpreted as either keep or delete would just be equivalent to a "comment" or somesuch.
You're talking from a black and white point of view. I'm talking from a greyscale (or perhaps even 24-bit colour) view. I say merge is separate from keep. People who vote "merge" clearly don't mean "keep", because otherwise *they'd have damn well said it*. So don't appropriate votes to suit your point of view.
Worl, ideally, if an admin closes '''merge''', she'd either a) do the merge herself, or b) tag both articles for merging
Perhaps that's too much effort, I dunno. I'm not an admin. I know I haven't done very many merges off my own bat, too.
Ideally, sure, but I wouldn't necessarily consider this to be an official part of "closing" the AfD. Merging articles is in the same class of actions as fixing spellings or reorganizing paragraphs within a page, a general editing task that doesn't require the sort of rigid officialism that deletion has wound up needing. I've done plenty of merges on my own when I stumble across pages that I think need it, and ideally pages that needed merging would never be listed on AfD in the first place since that's explicitly mentioned in the deletion guidelines as something that doesn't warrant AfD.
On the contrary, I think it is entirely the closing admin's duty to put the merge and mergefrom tages on the pages. It is only slightly longer than doing a standard delete or keep, and clearly benefits the encyclopaedia as a whole.
I agree that pages that need merging don't need AfD, but sometimes AfD gives pages that need merging. Are you really going to take the rules-lawyer approach and say that an AfD cannot give a merge consensus? That is what you might call "rigid officialism".
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
That looks like a different premise contributing to our disagreement, then, because I'd count that as "keeping" the article and therefore as the merge vote being interpreted as "keep". A vote that wasn't interpreted as either keep or delete would just be equivalent to a "comment" or somesuch.
You're talking from a black and white point of view. I'm talking from a greyscale (or perhaps even 24-bit colour) view. I say merge is separate from keep. People who vote "merge" clearly don't mean "keep", because otherwise *they'd have damn well said it*. So don't appropriate votes to suit your point of view.
Yes, I know, I already explicitly said I was seeing this as a black and white issue. And as I explained, I believe that it fundamentally _is_ black and white; at the end of the day the closing admin will either press the "delete" link or he won't press the "delete" link. Merge votes push that decision in the "don't press the delete link" direction, and so they look more like keep votes than delete votes to me. This isn't an attempt to "appropriate" them, just pointing out what their actual effect is. I don't see why this is such a matter of contention.
I agree that pages that need merging don't need AfD, but sometimes AfD gives pages that need merging. Are you really going to take the rules-lawyer approach and say that an AfD cannot give a merge consensus? That is what you might call "rigid officialism".
When did I ever say that? If an AfD comes along and lots of people suggest merging the article into some other article, then it would take a pretty strange interpretation of rules to try to forbid merging the article after the AfD is done simply because AfD's not supposed to be used solely to make those decisions. People also suggest things like "clean up spelling" or "remove the bright purple tables" or whatever, and those are often good ones too. My point is that if there's an AfD and lots of people suggest merging the article, that shouldn't be taken to mean that the article should be _deleted_.
On 11/20/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Yes, I know, I already explicitly said I was seeing this as a black and white issue. And as I explained, I believe that it fundamentally _is_ black and white; at the end of the day the closing admin will either press the "delete" link or he won't press the "delete" link. Merge votes push that decision in the "don't press the delete link" direction, and so they look more like keep votes than delete votes to me. This isn't an attempt to "appropriate" them, just pointing out what their actual effect is. I don't see why this is such a matter of contention.
You may. I don't. So don't insist that that is what should be. That is what you think should be. I acknowledge it if I have also been too stringent in this.
I agree that pages that need merging don't need AfD, but sometimes AfD gives pages that need merging. Are you really going to take the rules-lawyer approach and say that an AfD cannot give a merge consensus? That is what you might call "rigid officialism".
When did I ever say that? If an AfD comes along and lots of people suggest merging the article into some other article, then it would take a pretty strange interpretation of rules to try to forbid merging the article after the AfD is done simply because AfD's not supposed to be used solely to make those decisions. People also suggest things like "clean up spelling" or "remove the bright purple tables" or whatever, and those are often good ones too. My point is that if there's an AfD and lots of people suggest merging the article, that shouldn't be taken to mean that the article should be _deleted_.
Your precise words were "AfD has nothing to do with merging", which implies exactly what I said. In the end, we are not really discussing whether it's a de facto keep. We're discussing whether it's a de jure keep. (At least, I am.) I don't think anyone has suggested that merge should mean delete. I have only ever argued that it should be considered as "merge", completely separate from keep or delete.
-- Sam
Bryan Derksen wrote:
People also suggest things like "clean up spelling" or "remove the bright purple tables" or whatever, and those are often good ones too.
The problem being, I can remove the bright purple tables and correct the spelling while the article's still in AFD (if I think it's worth it, I wouldn't do that for a very probable deletion candidate...) What I *can't* do is speedy merge, because it's strictly verboten to mess with the AFD tag. So, I've got to *vote* merge and hope that somebody listens, or I have to revisit the article after the AFD is over (if I don't forget about it).
grm_wnr
grm_wnr wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
People also suggest things like "clean up spelling" or "remove the bright purple tables" or whatever, and those are often good ones too.
The problem being, I can remove the bright purple tables and correct the spelling while the article's still in AFD (if I think it's worth it, I wouldn't do that for a very probable deletion candidate...) What I *can't* do is speedy merge, because it's strictly verboten to mess with the AFD tag. So, I've got to *vote* merge and hope that somebody listens, or I have to revisit the article after the AFD is over (if I don't forget about it).
Bollocks it's verboten to speedy merge. Anyone who thinks it is has a bad case of process over product and is inappropriately asserting the supremacy of AFD over writing an encyclopedia.
- d.
On 11/21/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Bollocks it's verboten to speedy merge. Anyone who thinks it is has a bad case of process over product and is inappropriately asserting the supremacy of AFD over writing an encyclopedia.
Wholly agreed. Although I know already that merges have been undone for entirely that reason. I'm surprised nobody has an issue with anyone making any edits to a AFD'd article.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 11/21/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Bollocks it's verboten to speedy merge. Anyone who thinks it is has a bad case of process over product and is inappropriately asserting the supremacy of AFD over writing an encyclopedia.
Wholly agreed. Although I know already that merges have been undone for entirely that reason. I'm surprised nobody has an issue with anyone making any edits to a AFD'd article.
-Matt
From my past experience with VfD (in other words, pre-AFD), people always get very very pissed when an article is merged and redirected if it is on VfD or already had been on VfD and kept. For some reason, people seem to think VfD/AFD is the final word on what an article's status should be. Perhaps in a simple black and white, delete or keep world it is. But in a world where there are shades of grey such as merge & redirect, this position is illogical.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
"Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote in message news:42f90dc00511211942j7d12ed8cn87469568c7d2af0@mail.gmail.com...
On 11/21/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Bollocks it's verboten to speedy merge. Anyone who thinks it is has a bad case of process over product and is inappropriately asserting the supremacy of AFD over writing an encyclopedia.
Wholly agreed. Although I know already that merges have been undone for entirely that reason. I'm surprised nobody has an issue with anyone making any edits to a AFD'd article.
There's plenty of people who might have issues with it.
However they can take their issues and [censored].
AFD is like the Sabbath: it was intended to serve Wikipedia, not the other way around.
HTH HAND
On 11/20/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Sam,
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
everybody considers a merge vote as a de-facto keep vote, because thats what the rules say. If they think otherwise they are mistaken.
Please cite this rule and tell me which everyone thinks this. I had thought "everybody" meant that all the members of a community, or at least a very large supermajority. Once again, I fear you are moulding the facts until they become *your* facts.
The rules do *not* say that merge == keep.
I think it depends whether you look at it from a content- or page-based POV. Those who want merges generally want the content kept, so they can't be considered fans of deletion. However, they certainly don't want the page kept (indeed, some will even ask for the article to be deleted, rather than left as a redirect ... presumably this will involve some ultra-complicated wacky history merge thing).
It's not accurate to say that merge == keep *or* that merge == delete. Merge == merge. Fortunately, it's usually the people pushing an "inclusionist" or "deletionist" view that take the "merges should be reinterpreted" line, and not the closing admins.
In any case, at the end of the day, it's just an article on a website (albeit, a super-mega-happy-awesome website). I'm not going to lose any sleep over a page being kept, deleted, merged, BJOADNed, or anything else (well, I might get upset if [[Lang Hancock]] is deleted ...).
Well said, Mark.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/Raul%27s_laws
Jacqui's law: the longer a user spends time in polls and/or debates, the more he or she will see each question as a binary of delete or keep.
-- Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/20/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I think it depends whether you look at it from a content- or page-based POV. Those who want merges generally want the content kept, so they can't be considered fans of deletion. However, they certainly don't want the page kept (indeed, some will even ask for the article to be deleted, rather than left as a redirect ... presumably this will involve some ultra-complicated wacky history merge thing).
It's not accurate to say that merge == keep *or* that merge == delete. Merge == merge. Fortunately, it's usually the people pushing an "inclusionist" or "deletionist" view that take the "merges should be reinterpreted" line, and not the closing admins.
A merge vote means "merge the content elsewhere and then create a redirect". Someone who votes merge doesn't want the page deleted, they want the content merged elsewhere. It's important to understand this, because if we copy content and then delete the original article, we are violating the GFDL by failing to preserve the edit history. Instead, we merge content and create a redirect.
Consequently, there is no need for the closing administrator to count "merge" as anything but a keep vote. Someone who votes merge wants the article kept, because the article must be kept in order to merge the content and comply with the GFDL.
Ryan
On 11/20/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
A merge vote means "merge the content elsewhere and then create a redirect". Someone who votes merge doesn't want the page deleted, they want the content merged elsewhere. It's important to understand this, because if we copy content and then delete the original article, we are violating the GFDL by failing to preserve the edit history. Instead, we merge content and create a redirect.
Consequently, there is no need for the closing administrator to count "merge" as anything but a keep vote. Someone who votes merge wants the article kept, because the article must be kept in order to merge the content and comply with the GFDL.
Ryan
How do you know that they want the article kept? AfD is only binary because of the polarising forces of the "inclusionists" and "deletionists". It needn't be so. A vote to merge is a vote to merge. It may have other results, such as forcing a no-consensus. It is not acceptable for anyone to say otherwise. If someone means something other than what they write, let them say it. Don't say "I know more than you, and merging means letting some information stay, as does keeping, therefore keeping == merging, therefore I can enterpret your vote as a 'keep'".
Would you enterpret "Redirect" as a keep? The information is, after all, kept in the article history.
-- Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/20/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
A merge vote means "merge the content elsewhere and then create a redirect". Someone who votes merge doesn't want the page deleted, they want the content merged elsewhere. It's important to understand this, because if we copy content and then delete the original article, we are violating the GFDL by failing to preserve the edit history. Instead, we merge content and create a redirect.
Consequently, there is no need for the closing administrator to count "merge" as anything but a keep vote. Someone who votes merge wants the article kept, because the article must be kept in order to merge the content and comply with the GFDL.
Ryan
How do you know that they want the article kept?
Because of the requirements of the GFDL, like I explained.
Ryan
I think it was generally agreed that this debate was going at cross-purposes, with me arguing from a page point of view and others from a content point of view.
I am, however, intrigued you brought this up again after three weeks! ;=)
Sam
On 12/11/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/20/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
A merge vote means "merge the content elsewhere and then create a redirect". Someone who votes merge doesn't want the page deleted, they want the content merged elsewhere. It's important to understand this, because if we copy content and then delete the original article, we are violating the GFDL by failing to preserve the edit history. Instead, we merge content and create a redirect.
Consequently, there is no need for the closing administrator to count "merge" as anything but a keep vote. Someone who votes merge wants the article kept, because the article must be kept in order to merge the content and comply with the GFDL.
Ryan
How do you know that they want the article kept?
Because of the requirements of the GFDL, like I explained.
Ryan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDnKDv6MKb8lYmCtcRAtcjAKCe2xr1j2GmDSBKaGOTVL/Je/VYCwCcCey0 z2OleB3wXfCAA9QRe5ovzRE= =K60N -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
everybody considers a merge vote as a de-facto keep vote, because thats what the rules say. If they think otherwise they are mistaken.
Please cite this rule and tell me which everyone thinks this. I had thought "everybody" meant that all the members of a community, or at least a very large supermajority. Once again, I fear you are moulding the facts until they become *your* facts.
The rules do *not* say that merge == keep.
So what! It obviously pains those who have a black and white outlook that someone should try to find an alternative solution. But it often happens when you try to break up a street fight both fighters will turn against you.
Ec
On 11/19/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the information must be kept.
That is still putting things into people's mouths.
No. Absolutely not. Utterly, completely, obviously false. You cannot merge information without keeping it. If you don't keep it, it isn't there to be merged. This is pretty basic stuff.
On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the information must be kept.
That is still putting things into people's mouths.
No. Absolutely not. Utterly, completely, obviously false. You cannot merge information without keeping it. If you don't keep it, it isn't there to be merged. This is pretty basic stuff.
What if the person only wants part of the article merged?
-- geni
On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the information must be kept.
That is still putting things into people's mouths.
No. Absolutely not. Utterly, completely, obviously false. You cannot merge information without keeping it. If you don't keep it, it isn't there to be merged. This is pretty basic stuff.
In your opinion. In my opinion, merge is completely separate from keep. Can you at least see how I came to this opinion? If so, you'll kindly allow me to keep it. If not, you clearly are being over-zealous in your opinions.
-- Sam
On 11/21/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
In your opinion. In my opinion, merge is completely separate from keep. Can you at least see how I came to this opinion? If so, you'll kindly allow me to keep it. If not, you clearly are being over-zealous in your opinions.
-- Sam
I suspect this may be due to diffence in focus with one person focusing on content and the other on organisation.
-- geni
On 11/21/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect this may be due to diffence in focus with one person focusing on content and the other on organisation.
Yes, you are probably right. Thank you for articulating this.
-- Sam
On 11/21/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
You
cannot merge information without keeping it. If you don't keep it, it isn't there to be merged. This is pretty basic stuff.
In your opinion.
I suppose if we had Wikipedia installed quantum computers there would be a sense in which this could be said to be a matter of opinion. Otherwise I think we must be arguing to cross purposes. I've stated that information cannot be removed and not removed at the same time--which I think we can safely assume is a fact.
On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose if we had Wikipedia installed quantum computers there would be a sense in which this could be said to be a matter of opinion. Otherwise I think we must be arguing to cross purposes. I've stated that information cannot be removed and not removed at the same time--which I think we can safely assume is a fact.
Not for the first time on this message list, I feel the cross-purposes hypothesis is highly likely.
-- Sam
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
On 11/19/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Merge is a vote to merge. I don't see putting words into nominators' mouths as acceptable.
People who vote to merge are implicitly acknowledging that the information must be kept. A merge can be undone by any editor, resulting in the status quo ante. It follows that a merge is a keep by another name. it's merely an editing operation and one that can be (and sometimes is) performed by a non-admin editor after an AfD close.
Merge votes are typically "merge whatever is useful". It's not an endorsement of the current contents, certainly not all of them, and it's definitely a statement that wherever the contents should be, it's not *here*. Some editors pretend that 10 deletes, 4 merges, and 3 keeps means the article should stick around, when, in fact, it's a strong statement that *this* article should not exist, though it's possible that the information in it belongs somewhere else.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
Merge votes are typically "merge whatever is useful". It's not an endorsement of the current contents, certainly not all of them, and it's definitely a statement that wherever the contents should be, it's not *here*. Some editors pretend that 10 deletes, 4 merges, and 3 keeps means the article should stick around, when, in fact, it's a strong statement that *this* article should not exist, though it's possible that the information in it belongs somewhere else.
So then merge it. A "keep" result doesn't mean "don't ever touch this article again!", it just means "don't delete." Normal editing can proceed from there.
On the other hand, "merge whatever is useful" is a subjective interpretation unless the voters explicitly describe what they think is useful - perhaps they think it's _all_ useful, perhaps they just like the navbox at the bottom. So someone merging solely on the basis of merge votes (for example, a closing admin who is just obeying "consensus") should IMO do it as conservatively as possible to make sure nothing useful gets left behind. Other editors who come along later can edit based on more detailed criteria and value judgements.
I don't think you understand. Obvious lapses of general common snese, like a seperate article on, say, Ashlee Simpson or someone's cover of "Joy to the World" can be listed on AfD all it wants to, but the teenybopper fan club is gonna gang up and have it kept.
On 11/18/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
AfD is flawed, because if you suggest cutting any of this stuff down, merging, or whatever, little Wikipedia cliques pop up and prevent anything from being done.
Those annoying people who insist on pointing out that there is no consensus for deletion rampages sure are killjoys, aren't they? Gosh darn them to heck!
-- Sean Barrett | A positive attitude may not solve all sean@epoptic.org | your problems, but it will annoy enough | people to make it worth the effort. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/17/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What's your basis for saying that they are worthless? Putting them in a separate "fun stuff" section makes it clear that these are not the most "important" facts about the subject.
We are an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Almost always, these points bear no relation to the rest of the article, are unsourced, and make the article read badly. They are a net loss to the encyclopaedia.
How is it that there is no relation? These trivia still need to relate to the subject of the article. Almost everything in the Guinness Book of Records is trivial, and it has been consistently popular
The facts therein can almost always be written into the text of the article. If they can't, the fact is almost certainly too irrelevant to mention.
We're not building an encyclopedia of pomposity!
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
We're not building an encyclopedia of pomposity! Sometimes it seems that we are not building an encyclopædia at all with some of rubbish that gets in it.
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The facts therein can almost always be written into the text of the article. If they can't, the fact is almost certainly too irrelevant to mention.
We're not building an encyclopedia of pomposity!
Please find me a piece of trivia that cannot be happily written into the article but that is worth saying.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The facts therein can almost always be written into the text of the article. If they can't, the fact is almost certainly too irrelevant to mention.
We're not building an encyclopedia of pomposity!
Please find me a piece of trivia that cannot be happily written into the article but that is worth saying.
Whether a particular trivium is written into the text of an article or in a separate section at the end is not an issue for me. If it has been accepted as worth saying it can be in either place.
Ec
Sam Korn wrote:
On 11/15/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
Lets consdir the situation:
The problem: This article is to big and there is no obvious split Solution. Remove stuff while doing the minium posible damage to the article.
That tends to result in the popular culture/trivia section being the first to go.
Trivia sections should not exist for their own sake. If there is no way to work the facts into the text of the article, it is likely enough the writer showing off that they knew something or a newbie thinking this is a fan site. The details are usually irrelevant (cf. edit war over mention of Abraham Lincoln in [[Charles Darwin]]), and it improves the quality of the articles to take them out.
There's certainly nothing wrong with mentioning the birthday co-incidence in the article, but then there's no shortage of anal idiots who have no appreciation for the lighter side of things.
Ec
geni wrote:
If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
Maybe it's too recent a subject to have any material out there in pop culture to warrant such a section? Maybe there's enough material, but no editors have thought of adding it yet? Or they did, and it's scattered elsewhere in the article rather than being gathered into a section? Maybe it was already split off, or is in some more generic "major hurricanes in pop culture" article somewhere?
More important, though, is the question of why the absence of a pop culture section in any particular article is a reason why there shouldn't be one in any _other_ particular article. Once upon a time Wikipedia didn't have any articles about hurricanes at all but nobody objected on that basis when the first one got added (or if they did, they obviously had no effect).
Lets consdir the situation:
The problem: This article is to big and there is no obvious split Solution. Remove stuff while doing the minium posible damage to the article.
That tends to result in the popular culture/trivia section being the first to go.
If there's such a big "pop culture" section in the article, how can you claim that there's no obvious split solution? Take the text you've just highlighted for deletion and copy and paste it into a new article instead. Easy and obvious. Deleting it may not "damage" the article itself any worse than splitting it off would, but it does damage Wikipedia as a whole more.
I suppose I must be a rabid inclusionist or something because I simply can't understand why you'd rather delete a section like this than split it off into a child article.
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message news:f80608430511150858r79fb5248h36cc3b5fe9f09344@mail.gmail.com... [snip]
If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
Possibly because no-one has found anything either funny or trivial which is actually relevant to a weather phenomenon that caused so much havoc.
You might as well ask why there's no trivia section in [[Necrotizing fasciitis]]...simply put, there's nothing at all trivial about it, and I suspect any attempt to add such would be removed in short order as vandalism.
HTH HAND
On 11/16/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly because no-one has found anything either funny or trivial which is actually relevant to a weather phenomenon that caused so much havoc.
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Considering the 9/11 jokes and the diana jokes I'm sure lots of people have found things funny about it.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 11/15/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Does "the entire world does not have broadband" mean anything to you? Ok so 32 is probably a little low for an article size limit but 40+ and popular culture/trivia are second on my list of things to kill
You mentioned the Arb Com as someone to deal with this sort of thing. I suggest you check the case of Robert the Bruce, where systematic removal of verifiable information from articles was considered the most heinous of his offences.
What on Earth do you think you're doing? Spin it out to a separate article if its presence offends your sense of order so grievously.
If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
Lets consdir the situation:
The problem: This article is to big and there is no obvious split Solution. Remove stuff while doing the minium posible damage to the article.
That tends to result in the popular culture/trivia section being the first to go.
I have always agreed that an article that exceeds 32k in length should be a candidate for revision, and that it is sometimes difficult to find an obvious place to split the article. Another good way of reducing an article is to tighten up the language. Many writing styles are far too verbose, and a friendly fire casualty of multiple editors is often the prose style. This kind of work can even be done by someone with little or no knowledge of the subject. Unfortunately, this kind of clean-up takes a lot of hard work, and I can see that hard work would not sit comfortably with those who prefer the convenience of snipping out entire paragraphs.
I would not consider myself a big fan of popular culture, but I respect the interest of others in it. I certainly do not support the credo that it somehow impugns the dignity of Wikipedia. People love trivia. Trivia is the meat and potatoes of the party conversation that begins with, "Did you know that ..." The staged photo of a small group of US troops in Iraq with an enormous and dangerous desert crab became the inspiration of many conversations. Sometimes the most memorable information in an otherwise completely tedious article is the trivia.
Ec