[WikiEN-l] Article Rescue Squadron: Combat medics urgently needed

John Lee johnleemk at gmail.com
Sat Jul 14 17:04:44 UTC 2007

On 7/15/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/07/07, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We've renamed VfD this once, to get rid of the 'votes', since it
> > shouldn't be about votes.  Perhaps it is time to get rid of the D,
> > since it isn't really about deletion -- which involves an initial
> > assumption of bad faith -- but about review: what is the author
> > thinking?  If the author is really trying to convey useful information
> > about an encyclopedic and notable subject (good faith), how can we
> > help them improve their work / extract better information from them /
> > guide them to reasonable style guidelines?   "Articles for Deletion"
> > could be something related, very specific, and altogether different.
> > It might be sensible to have a cleanly generalized "Articles for
> > Review" page that decides what to do with articles that have trouble.
> > Does it get pushed off to a subgroup, say via {{delete}} or
> > {{cleanup}}?  perhaps there are niceties to be followed when deleting
> > something -- check in with the main authors, decide whether or not to
> > delete the talk page as well, archive as appropriate, update inbound
> > links, doublecheck that the authors aren't serially doing something
> > they shouldn't be.  This could go to an "articles for deletion"
> > project -- at which point it is not about WHETHER to delete, but HOW.
> >  Then it would make sense for the deletionists and people who care
> > about keeping the encyclo clean to run that shop.
> :-O
> :-D
> Brilliant!

I recall Kelly Martin was once pushing this heavily, and a number of people
(including, *cough*, yours truly) have pointed out these problems in the
past. We really need to move beyond the blowing hot air stage and, you know,
try to push this through consensually. Assuming we can get a consensus on
this at all.


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list