To cut the traffic on VfD, list on Cleanup for two weeks first if it isn't actually harmful (offensive or illegal, not tasteless or dictionary) to have it around for that time. And tell the most prominent creators it's been listed there for more work so they can do that work if they want to.
This gives time for the debates to start and maybe finish before things arrive at VfD. Also time for the people who are inclined to work on articles to do that before they use the more time-consuming VfD process. Would be nice not to see newbies getting educated instead of listed on VfD an hour afer starting work on a page as well.
Once those steps have halved the demand for VfD there won't be a need to cut the time things stay there.
Cleanup might need to switch to one page per day of the week but that's less painful there because there's no deadline.
No, no, no, no, no! Kill that obnoxious Cleanup proposal. It's impossible to understand, and unworkable.
RickK
user_Jamesday user_Jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote: To cut the traffic on VfD, list on Cleanup for two weeks first if it isn't actually harmful (offensive or illegal, not tasteless or dictionary) to have it around for that time. And tell the most prominent creators it's been listed there for more work so they can do that work if they want to.
This gives time for the debates to start and maybe finish before things arrive at VfD. Also time for the people who are inclined to work on articles to do that before they use the more time-consuming VfD process. Would be nice not to see newbies getting educated instead of listed on VfD an hour afer starting work on a page as well.
Once those steps have halved the demand for VfD there won't be a need to cut the time things stay there.
Cleanup might need to switch to one page per day of the week but that's less painful there because there's no deadline.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad idea from the start.
It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive than simply deleting them.
RickK wrote: No, no, no, no, no! Kill that obnoxious Cleanup proposal. It's
impossible to understand, and unworkable.
RickK
user_Jamesday user_Jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote: To cut the traffic on VfD, list on Cleanup for two weeks first if it
isn't actually harmful (offensive or
illegal, not tasteless or dictionary) to have it around for that
time. And tell the most prominent creators
it's been listed there for more work so they can do that work if
they want to.
This gives time for the debates to start and maybe finish before
things arrive at VfD. Also time for the
people who are inclined to work on articles to do that before they
use the more time-consuming VfD process.
Would be nice not to see newbies getting educated instead of listed
on VfD an hour afer starting work on a
page as well.
Once those steps have halved the demand for VfD there won't be a
need to cut the time things stay there.
Cleanup might need to switch to one page per day of the week but
that's less painful there because there's
no deadline.
The Cunctator wrote:
The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad idea from the start.
It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive than simply deleting them.
Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a period of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced red links would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.
-- Jake
Jake Nelson wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad idea from the start.
It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive than simply deleting them.
Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a period of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced red links would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.
This has my support. VfD seems to have become a nest of control freaks determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable rules. It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily humours.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:06 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion policy needed
Jake Nelson wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a
bad
idea from the start.
It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We
have
methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive than simply deleting them.
Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a
period
of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced
red
links
would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as
well.
This has my support. VfD seems to have become a nest of control
freaks
determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable
rules.
It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily
humours.
Aren't blanked pages indicated by a special color indicating stubs now?
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jake Nelson wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad idea from the start.
It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive than simply deleting them.
Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a period of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced red links would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.
This has my support. VfD seems to have become a nest of control freaks determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable rules. It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily humours.
I'm not sure I really see that. There are surely quite a few contentious issues, but the vast majority of articles are plain nonsense that *should* be deleted, and generally there is no opposition to their deletion. Things like self-aggrandizement (someone listing their own resume, an ad for their website, etc.), just plain factually wrong information (made-up characters in non-existent books), and so on. I spend a good deal of time clearing out the resolved issues from VfD every day or two, and the vast majority of the stuff I clear out of there is completely non-controversial; the only reason it needs to be listed at all is to make sure the lister didn't make a mistake (occasionally something gets listed as self-aggrandizement, for example, but turns out to be about someone who is notable in some way or another). But most of the time it turns out to be some graduate student's resume, in which case after the 7 days deletion is perfectly reasonable.
-Mark
WHAT????? Are you saying that those of us who actually believe in deleting obnoxious and ridiculous articles are somehow damaging Wikipedia?
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This has my support. VfD seems to have become a nest of control freaks determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable rules. It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily humours.
Ec
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Not at all. I was referring to the activities at VfD. Ec
Rick wrote:
WHAT????? Are you saying that those of us who actually believe in deleting obnoxious and ridiculous articles are somehow damaging Wikipedia?
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This has my support. VfD seems to have become a nest of control freaks determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable rules. It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily humours. Ec
Yes, just as I said. You are making personal attacks on those of us who use the VfD page and believe in using it.
RickK
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Not at all. I was referring to the activities at VfD. Ec
Rick wrote:
WHAT????? Are you saying that those of us who actually believe in deleting obnoxious and ridiculous articles are somehow damaging Wikipedia?
RickK
Ray Saintonge wrote:
This has my support. VfD seems to have become a nest of control freaks determined to invent newer, more complicated and more unworkable rules. It's managing to suck in more and more useful contributors just to watch these people who are obsessed with maintaining our bodily humours.
Ec
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
How do you expect to make links red if they arent' deleted?
RickK
Jake Nelson jnelson@soncom.com wrote: The Cunctator wrote:
The tone on Wikipedia seems to be degenerating.
Not that I'm surprised VfD is a nest of hornets. I've thought it a bad idea from the start.
It's also disturbing that pages that aren't offensive or illegal are being listed on VfD. There is *no need* to delete stub entries. We have methods of indicating them as stubs, which is much more constructive than simply deleting them.
Agreed. Very few of the pages listed have any particular reason to be deleted. I still believe an altogether moratorium on deletions for a period of time would do wonders. Making it so that blanked pages produced red links would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.
-- Jake
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
RickK wrote:
Jake Nelson jnelson@soncom.com wrote:
Making it so that blanked pages produced red links would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.
How do you expect to make links red if they aren't deleted?
This is a software change that's been requested for years now (in various forms -- actually predating the switch to red!). Jake is giving an argument in favour of it.
-- Toby
But empty pages now show up as brown links. This is an important distinction.
RickK
Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote: RickK wrote:
Jake Nelson wrote:
Making it so that blanked pages produced red links would probably help shoot down one of the arguments for deletion, as well.
How do you expect to make links red if they aren't deleted?
This is a software change that's been requested for years now (in various forms -- actually predating the switch to red!). Jake is giving an argument in favour of it.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
No, no, no, no, no! Kill that obnoxious Cleanup proposal. It's impossible to understand, and unworkable.
I wonder if anyone else saw the one-dimensional irony in this statement.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com