On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#...
Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
On 09/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#...
Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in your responses.
- d.
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in your responses.
It is however the correct answer. DRV only exists because there are screwups elsewhere.
In this case I fail to see a problem. The issue can usefully be discussed (although I thought the schools issue had taught us that AFD was not the place to sort out this kind of thing) and as long as no one trys add "mediawiki template code" to our list of Esoteric programming languages no one will have done anything terminaly stupid. In any case part of the point of m:Instruction creep is that you sould not generalise from indivdual cases. If you have a problem with that case go and comment there. Something which you have not done.
Considering what it does DRV does as well as can reasonably be expected. Yes there is drama but that is normaly due to actions elsewhere.
On 9/9/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
It is however the correct answer. DRV only exists because there are screwups elsewhere.
[snip]
Evidence?
As far as I can tell DRV exists because there was a group of users who didn't feel like they were given enough control over Wikipedia... so another page was required to give a larger audience their power fix.
Wikipedia (tm) The free content encyclopedia where everyone is CEO.
On 9/9/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
It is however the correct answer. DRV only exists because there are screwups elsewhere.
[snip]
Evidence?
Because if every deletion was perfect it would be easy to argue that it was not needed.
As far as I can tell DRV exists because there was a group of users who didn't feel like they were given enough control over Wikipedia... so another page was required to give a larger audience their power fix.
That isn't a very nice way to talk about inclusionists.
On Sep 9, 2006, at 4:56 PM, geni wrote:
That isn't a very nice way to talk about inclusionists.
You're confusing DRV with VfU. VfU was the very nice page we used to have where deletions could be contested. DRV is what happened when the deletionists got mad that VFU was being used to give articles a "second chance," and so they overwhelmed all sense and made it so that you couldn't undelete an article on the grounds that the outcome was idiotic.
Unfortunately, this didn't actually put an end to AfD coming to idiotic conclusions, leaving us without a good mechanism in place to deal with that - a particular problem considering the continued belief of some AfD regulars that AfDs that close "delete" all mean "and salt the earth so that this article may never rise again."
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On 9/9/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 9, 2006, at 4:56 PM, geni wrote:
That isn't a very nice way to talk about inclusionists.
You're confusing DRV with VfU. VfU was the very nice page we used to have where deletions could be contested. DRV is what happened when the deletionists got mad that VFU was being used to give articles a "second chance," and so they overwhelmed all sense and made it so that you couldn't undelete an article on the grounds that the outcome was idiotic.
Ah no. VFU was traditionaly controled by process wonks who largely managed to keep the deletionist/inclusionist wars elsewhere. The inclusionists were understandible upset that from time to time a school would somehow get deleted. Eventualy they managed to get together in large enough numbers to start deletion wars on VfU although haveing to deal with the problem that they needed more than a majority to get their way did slow them down. About this time the use of wikipedia newspeak became manditory and the title was changed to DRV. Thus we have today.
Isn't revisionist history fun?
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#...
Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in your responses.
- d.
Ah, but you already set it for your original message.
~maru
Let alone all subsequent replies.
But honestly, 'stop screwing up deletions in the first place' is the perfect solution, its just impossible to implement. I say for every controversial AfD closure or prod, 3 sysops have to take a call and article is only deleted if 2 of 3 vote delete.
On 9/10/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#...
Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in your responses.
- d.
Ah, but you already set it for your original message.
~maru _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 09/09/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#...
Stop screwing up deletions in the first place?
geni
I'd agree. I don't know what the solution is, but there has to be something better than have a small group of people discuss/vote (the latter despite the use of newspeak) on deleting articles, when those who are involved on AFD are either an uninvolved and usually ignorant (of the subject) group, or an involved but biased group brought there by message-spamming/vote-rigging. In fact, having the latter group represented as fully as possible is entirely reasonable.
However, it's laughable to suggest that AFD reflects the consensus of Wikipedia editors, and further than that, that would not even be sensible either. It is not sustainable to suggest the majority would be correct. Finally, having such random groups of editors discuss/vote makes little reference to what readers would like.
I'm aware that my discussion gives little credit to those who participate in AFD, and do carefully look at the background in various subjects, who do consider what the encyclopaedia should include for readers, and are suitably unbiased to give a proper opinion.
However, there is no mechanism to rely more on opinions of worth than worthless opinions. This problem of course applies to Wikipedia across the board.
Zoney out.
On 11/09/06, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I'm aware that my discussion gives little credit to those who participate in AFD, and do carefully look at the background in various subjects, who do consider what the encyclopaedia should include for readers, and are suitably unbiased to give a proper opinion.
PROD takes a bit of the load off AFD, though I don't know numbers. (Anyone?) And undeleting after a PROD is a matter of asking an admin for the undelete (and then fixing whatever got it PRODded in the first place, or it may end up on AFD proper). So AFD can consider the contentious stuff in a bit more depth.
However, there is no mechanism to rely more on opinions of worth than worthless opinions. This problem of course applies to Wikipedia across the board.
Sure there is - the closing admin is supposed to apply sense. Nineteen "* never heard of it, delete" followed by one "Keep, I'm an expert and I've added full references confirming its verifiability and notability" is supposed to result in a keep, 'cos it's not a vote. The admins are relatively sensible most of the time I've looked of late.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Nineteen "never heard of it, delete" followed by one "Keep, I'm an expert and I've added full references confirming its verifiability and notability" is supposed to result in a keep, 'cos it's not a vote.
Careful there, d -- an out-of-hand, heretical assertion like that is liable to make some people's heads explode. Do you want that on your conscience?
On 9/11/06, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I'd agree. I don't know what the solution is, but there has to be something better than have a small group of people discuss/vote (the latter despite the use of newspeak) on deleting articles, when those who are involved on AFD are either an uninvolved and usually ignorant (of the subject) group, or an involved but biased group brought there by message-spamming/vote-rigging. In fact, having the latter group represented as fully as possible is entirely reasonable.
However, it's laughable to suggest that AFD reflects the consensus of Wikipedia editors, and further than that, that would not even be sensible either. It is not sustainable to suggest the majority would be correct. Finally, having such random groups of editors discuss/vote makes little reference to what readers would like.
Well, yes. AFD and its ilk are designed precisely to maximize the ability of the "uninvolved" to !vote on as many nominations as possible, as efficiently as possible. (Hence the emergence of WikiVoter, or whatever they're calling it this week.) This is not a function of the particular details of the process, incidentally, but rather the fact that a rigidly centralized process like the current AFD necessarily encourages people to participate on topics of which they are mostly ignorant (and about which they couldn't care less, usually -- except for the fact that they happened to come up in that day's deletion listings).
(The obvious consequence of this is that we can expect any fundamental change to AFD will be rigidly resisted by those whose heavy participation in the deletion process might be curtailed by such a change.)
On 9/11/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Well, yes. AFD and its ilk are designed precisely to maximize the ability of the "uninvolved" to !vote on as many nominations as possible, as efficiently as possible. (Hence the emergence of WikiVoter, or whatever they're calling it this week.) This is not a function of the particular details of the process, incidentally, but rather the fact that a rigidly centralized process like the current AFD necessarily encourages people to participate on topics of which they are mostly ignorant (and about which they couldn't care less, usually -- except for the fact that they happened to come up in that day's deletion listings).
(The obvious consequence of this is that we can expect any fundamental change to AFD will be rigidly resisted by those whose heavy participation in the deletion process might be curtailed by such a change.)
That was a beautiful description of the broken process. It's amazing it still lasts to this day.
Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems I see with DRV is that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD was closed.
Carl
On 9/9/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Biggest bug here is in all the "Endorse process" votes ...
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:23:11 -0400, "Carl Peterson" carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems I see with DRV is that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD was closed.
It is strange that you see it this way. As far as I can see, DRV is one of the few places where there is a serious attempt at a clue-based approach. Whatever the notional rules, people look at both content and process, and take a view on what is likely to be best for the project.
Obviously it's not consistent, but I have seen patient explanations to purveyors of egregious vanity and other examples of good practice.
I have also seen that the process is denounced by those who fail to get their favoured articles kept - the ED mob, for example. That is not DRV's fault, it's the fault of people who have a stake in the content of an article becoming excessively impassioned.
In the case of the esoteric programming languages, overall, most of them were below the level of trivial and in many cases looked like vanity for the creators. Several people at DRV asked that those which were considered to have been wrongly deleted, be listed separately, since the majority were clearly (to my mind) delete-worthy.
But I do think that AfD is not a good mechanism for deciding on a class of articles. Maybe a block RfC to discuss the individual articles, with an AfD nom at the end for those which by consensus in that discussion should be deleted.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:23:11 -0400, "Carl Peterson" carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of process votes, one of the biggest problems I see with DRV is that it becomes a second AFD. For example, if you look at the DRV for the CVU you'll notice that most of the comments (including some of my own) had more to do with the original delete/keep discussion that took place in the MfD than it did with whether or not policy was followed in the way the MfD was closed.
It is strange that you see it this way. As far as I can see, DRV is one of the few places where there is a serious attempt at a clue-based approach. Whatever the notional rules, people look at both content and process, and take a view on what is likely to be best for the project.
You have GOT to be joking. Process all the way, baby. Screw the content, so long as all the "votes" were "counted" and the "process" was "followed correctly", the result stands. Just about every time I've looked at the scrapheap (which isn't many btw.), it's been a slather of:
"(whatever the AFD result was), valid AFD ~~~~"
<snip>
In the case of the esoteric programming languages, overall, most of them were below the level of trivial and in many cases looked like vanity for the creators. Several people at DRV asked that those which were considered to have been wrongly deleted, be listed separately, since the majority were clearly (to my mind) delete-worthy.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the outcome.
But I do think that AfD is not a good mechanism for deciding on a class of articles. Maybe a block RfC to discuss the individual articles, with an AfD nom at the end for those which by consensus in that discussion should be deleted.
Until there's an "editorial board", nothing else will ever really work, because any peanut in the gallery can shout out their opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in mob rule.
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in mob rule.
Are you quite sure about that?
Akash Mehta wrote:
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in mob rule.
Are you quite sure about that?
Hrm, I don't know. How about this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
It's not anarchy, it's not democracy, it's not bureaucracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia
Matt Brown wrote:
Biggest bug here is in all the "Endorse process" votes ...
Indeed. Any process that results in a group nomination of 61 articles and allows both group votes and individual voting on each specific article like this is a horrendous mess. What sense can possibly be made of all the "keep most" and "delete most" votes?
On 9/10/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Indeed. Any process that results in a group nomination of 61 articles and allows both group votes and individual voting on each specific article like this is a horrendous mess. What sense can possibly be made of all the "keep most" and "delete most" votes?
Absolutely. Each article should have some form of individual entry with a quick method of voting for or against, and an overall comments section at the bottom. Then again, the whole deletion review principle appears to serve an insignificant and problematic need. Maybe a MfD?
Akash Mehta wrote:
On 9/10/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Indeed. Any process that results in a group nomination of 61 articles and allows both group votes and individual voting on each specific article like this is a horrendous mess. What sense can possibly be made of all the "keep most" and "delete most" votes?
Absolutely. Each article should have some form of individual entry with a quick method of voting for or against, and an overall comments section at the bottom. Then again, the whole deletion review principle appears to serve an insignificant and problematic need. Maybe a MfD?
... of DRV? Excellent idea.
PS. I've never been too fond of the name "Deletion review" - sounds like some sort of revisionist history/slander site...
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe a MfD?
... of DRV? Excellent idea.
PS. I've never been too fond of the name "Deletion review" - sounds like some sort of revisionist history/slander site...
Well, I personally felt it fitted into the 'Miscellany' thing well. Didn't CVU have an MfD? And deletion review (from a en:wp perspective) seems like a policy to handle a policy (deletion policy) to handle stuff that fails policy.
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Akash Mehta wrote:
Maybe a MfD?
... of DRV? Excellent idea.
Or simply delete it, a la Uncle Ed.
Without wasting the time of a sysop to delete it, a respected user to raise questions regarding its deletion, a newbie to complain that they lost a lot of work in it, another respected user to realise this deserves an RfC, yet another sysop to look at the comments made by 10 other respected users in the RfC... Ah, process.
On 9/10/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Akash Mehta wrote:
Maybe a MfD?
... of DRV? Excellent idea.
Or simply delete it, a la Uncle Ed.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Akash Mehta wrote: [fixed top posting, again]
On 9/10/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Akash Mehta wrote:
Maybe a MfD?
... of DRV? Excellent idea.
Or simply delete it, a la Uncle Ed.
Without wasting the time of a sysop to delete it, a respected user to raise questions regarding its deletion, a newbie to complain that they lost a lot of work in it, another respected user to realise this deserves an RfC, yet another sysop to look at the comments made by 10 other respected users in the RfC... Ah, process.
... which is why I've MFD'ed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Del...
Best thing since sliced bread. And whats all this about 'top posting'?
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
... which is why I've MFD'ed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Del...
On 10/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
... which is why I've MFD'ed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Del...
I'm shocked and amazed mine is the first "kill it".
- d.
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
... which is why I've MFD'ed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Del...
uh huh. Would people tell me which bit of wikipedia it is going to be cool to attack next week so things can be better organised?
geni wrote:
On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
... which is why I've MFD'ed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Del...
uh huh. Would people tell me which bit of wikipedia it is going to be cool to attack next week so things can be better organised?
Next week we're taking out stub-sorting and introducing captchas to break all the semi-bots; only users with a bot flag will be exempt.
Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people were strongly in favour), I've now created the proposed policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Undeletion for your perusal.
On 10/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people were strongly in favour), I've now created the proposed policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Undeletion for your perusal.
Well, it arguably didn't, regrettable as that is.
Possible workable split: DRV for strict process review; AFU for merit undeletion.
- d.
On 9/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people were strongly in favour), I've now created the proposed policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Undeletion for your perusal.
Well, it arguably didn't, regrettable as that is.
Possible workable split: DRV for strict process review; AFU for merit undeletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Deletion_re...
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 9/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people were strongly in favour), I've now created the proposed policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Undeletion for your perusal.
Well, it arguably didn't, regrettable as that is.
Possible workable split: DRV for strict process review; AFU for merit undeletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Deletion_re...
This too was closed OUT OF PROCESS.
On 9/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people were strongly in favour), I've now created the proposed policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Undeletion for your perusal.
Well, it arguably didn't, regrettable as that is.
Possible workable split: DRV for strict process review; AFU for merit undeletion.
Perhaps keep DRV as a general over-arching policy and add "Process Review
of Deletion" (or something similar) for process appeals and Articles for Undeletion for content appeals. Basically, disambiguate the usage and intent.
Carl
Gahhh...DRV is so frusterating because the same people show up to comment almost every time. It gives the topic even less of a balanced decision than a screwed up AfD.
On 12/09/06, ikiroid ikiroid@gmail.com wrote:
Gahhh...DRV is so frusterating because the same people show up to comment almost every time. It gives the topic even less of a balanced decision than a screwed up AfD.
And even if they don't think it, they *behave* towards any suggestion of change as if it will destroy their power base.
Of course, their concern is actually that any suggestion of change will corrupt and thus destroy Wikipedia, or provide a precedent for such.
- d.
On 9/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I've now created the proposed policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Undeletion for your perusal.
I'm working on that policy to beef it up a little, it seems the best way. If we could get a group of people familiar with mediation, deletion policy and general [[WP:BITE]] to review articles that have been deleted, including a couple of sysops, then we could set up a decent, effective system for undeletions (and, in the process, tweak AfD/prod/speedy so that deletions aren't screwed up in the first place).
I think its also good if we mention something like this in the speedy notices, and have sysops tell newbies creating non-notable articles about this process.
It really aces the whole deletion review system. Can we speedy DRV after this is accepted? :D
On 9/10/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. Each article should have some form of individual entry with a quick method of voting for or against, and an overall comments section at the bottom. Then again, the whole deletion review principle appears to serve an insignificant and problematic need. Maybe a MfD?
This possibility was discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_W...
I think it was generaly assumed it was a bad idea.
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#...
Sorry if this was already stated but it seems to me that we have had this type of problem before and the same solution would work here: 1) Notify relevant wikiprojects like [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science]] of the desire to establish inclusion/exclusion criteria for programming languages 2) Discuss and establish some type of criteria at [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (programming languages) (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)]], [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)]], ) 3) Create a list of ones you don't think fit the criteria 4) Propose them over time :)
I would do it myself but I am not sufficiently infomed on programming languages to get the ball rolling.
On 12/09/06, Jim trodel@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/9/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_7#...
Sorry if this was already stated but it seems to me that we have had this type of problem before and the same solution would work here:
- Notify relevant wikiprojects like [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer
The problem with this one was not actually the result - I agree with pretty much the entire list of keeps and deletes. But it's a gross abuse of the deletion process, and anyone on DRV who could say "Endorse process" on this one with a straight face has shown themselves to be below a certain level of complexity.
- d.