[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington]] I just closed this vfd. Apparently someone decided vfd is not a discussion, and all discussion should be on the discussion page. Don't we have a big notice somewhere saying AFD is a discussion?
From: Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington]] I just closed this vfd. Apparently someone decided vfd is not a discussion, and all discussion should be on the discussion page. Don't we have a big notice somewhere saying AFD is a discussion?
Saying AfD discussion should be on an AfD discussion page is not the same as saying AfD is not a discussion.
Jay.
the afd *page* should be a discussion. That fragmented it.
On 9/13/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington]] I just closed this vfd. Apparently someone decided vfd is not a discussion, and all discussion should be on the discussion page. Don't we have a big notice somewhere saying AFD is a discussion?
Saying AfD discussion should be on an AfD discussion page is not the same as saying AfD is not a discussion.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/13/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
the afd *page* should be a discussion. That fragmented it.
If we are talking about an AfD discussion that goes on over multiple pages, then it is, I guess, OK to break it up a little. This should be done by an uninvolved user, preferably an admin with a mind to closing the debate themselves. But this was hardly necessary in this instance.
Sam
Phroziac wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington]] I just closed this vfd. Apparently someone decided vfd is not a discussion, and all discussion should be on the discussion page. Don't we have a big notice somewhere saying AFD is a discussion?
This looks like a great example. I haven't read the article, but my first impression from the title is that it's probably very deletable. But being deletable does not mean that the process has to be rushed. A mere one week for deletion discussions is very short. If most people feel that they have had the opportunity to express themselves the heat to light ratio will become smaller. If it takes two weeks to get rid of it that should be no big deal.
Ec
There has been a dislikable tendency to use large notes -- often dealing with superficial aspects of the name -- as disambiguation headers.
As a solution, I suggest using the footnote tags {{fn|1}} (top) {{fnb|1}} (bottom), under a == Notes == section, to move such things down as footnotes rather than hatnotes. Hatnotes should be substantial and as brief as possible, not links to punk bands, or any other thing other than disambiguation, or exactly similar titles.
In some cases, using a Disambiguation section (after links) seems a better compromise than even creating a disambiguation page.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Disambiguations are there to make it easier for people to find the article they're looking for and have a similar name to the article they end up at. Shortening to a regular "For other uses see Foo (disambiguation)" seems better than hiding them at the bottom, which defies the entire point of having them.
Only expand such top dab notices for stuff that's searched for really often.
--Mgm
On 9/13/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
There has been a dislikable tendency to use large notes -- often dealing with superficial aspects of the name -- as disambiguation headers.
As a solution, I suggest using the footnote tags {{fn|1}} (top) {{fnb|1}} (bottom), under a == Notes == section, to move such things down as footnotes rather than hatnotes. Hatnotes should be substantial and as brief as possible, not links to punk bands, or any other thing other than disambiguation, or exactly similar titles.
In some cases, using a Disambiguation section (after links) seems a better compromise than even creating a disambiguation page.
SV
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In some cases, I have used the same disambiguation link at top, only it links to a Disambiguation section at bottom, rather than on a separate page. The link looks the same. In other cases, where the "disambiguation" is misused for overly specific links, I will used the {{fn|1}} footnote tag. Thats for linking to a Notes section, put before External links. [[Monica Lewinsky scandal]] now has this, and I note that people are using these more consistently. Disambiguation could benefit from the same thing. Whoever said that disambiguations needed to be exclusively pages, and not sections? In cases where 98 percent of traffic links to a main article, or where only one separate entry (which people try to stick at the top) a simple disambiguation section seems justified.
SV
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Disambiguations are there to make it easier for people to find the article they're looking for and have a similar name to the article they end up at. Shortening to a regular "For other uses see Foo (disambiguation)" seems better than hiding them at the bottom, which defies the entire point of having them.
Only expand such top dab notices for stuff that's searched for really often.
--Mgm
On 9/13/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
There has been a dislikable tendency to use large notes -- often dealing with superficial aspects of
the
name -- as disambiguation headers.
As a solution, I suggest using the footnote tags {{fn|1}} (top) {{fnb|1}} (bottom), under a ==
Notes ==
section, to move such things down as footnotes
rather
than hatnotes. Hatnotes should be substantial and
as
brief as possible, not links to punk bands, or any other thing other than disambiguation, or exactly similar titles.
In some cases, using a Disambiguation section
(after
links) seems a better compromise than even
creating a
disambiguation page.
SV
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com