geni wrote:
On 10/17/05, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
At the time of this writing en has 776,230
articles. By definition, the
articles we're talking about are generally not "popular" - there are
only a few people interested in them one way or another. It's very easy
to overlook an AfD in all that for a five-day period, I managed to miss
the entire existence of the "The Jar" article from its creation through
to its deletion over a much longer period than that.
You relise the logical end point of that is that wikipedia has grown
beyond our ability to manage it and needs drasticaly downsizeing? Even
the most extream deletionists would probably feel that that was going
a little far.
You've interpreted my position to be exactly the opposite of what I was
aiming for. I'm not saying "Wikipedia is big, so we should be shrinking
it to make it easier to manage with our current methods". I'm saying
"Wikipedia is big, so we should be changing our methods of managing it
to cope with that."
Bit of a topic
shift there. The template namespace is very different
from the article namespace and is not addressed by AfD. There's TfD for
that, with its own separate set of criteria for template deletion.
I was refuring too the human habit of minimising expenditure of
energy. Under the suggested changes we would end up with an impressive
number of templates for voteing on AFD
Oh, I see, this is in reference to your idea to explain votes using
templates such as {{nn}} instead of just typing "nn". Well, I didn't
propose that and in fact I think it would be a bad idea. So I guess
we're in agreement here, for different reasons.
Redirects can
be changed. This is kind of a side-issue, though, specific
to this one particular article.
No you have already admited that not many people would care. What
makes you think the redirects would be changed?
I'm not sure what the problem here is, though. This is Wikipedia, the
whole point is that the readers are also editors and so when they spot a
problem they can fix it. If I follow a redirect and it takes me to the
wrong place, I go back and change it. If nobody ever follows the
redirect it won't get changed but it also won't _matter._
I edit plenty of articles about whose subjects I care nothing, BTW. The
random article link is my browser's home URL and I click it whenever I'm
bored with whatever else I was doing. Eventually someone else like me
would stumble across trouble spots even if nobody really cared about them.
ADF/[[wikipeida:wikiproject decency]] going on for
thirty days? You do
know that dissrupting wikipedia is a blokerble offence.
I figured I was going to be accused of violating WP:POINT at some point
in the course of this discussion. I was expecting that I'd have to
actually make a related edit on Wikipedia itself before it happened,
though, rather than just proposing an idea for a policy change.
I don't regard nn as useless so I have no problem
with them amounting
to the same thing.
Voting just "nn" gives no reasoning _why_ the voter thought the article
was nn. The point of AfD is supposed to be to have a discussion and
reach a consensus, not just tally up votes and go with whichever side
achieves the magic numeric threshold. If an article were to go up for
deletion and fifty people voted "keep, notable!" but one person voted
"delete, this is a hoax. See these websites [1][2][3], it was dreamed up
by a radio shock jock in 2003 at WKRAP in New Serepta as part of a
contest he was running." I would certainly hope that that one
well-support delete vote would blow all fifty of those unsupported keeps
out of the water.