Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 8

Archive of "should there be instructions at the top of this page?"

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

cut the pre-amble

If I view this page at 800x600, which I don't think is unreasonable, the opening preamble (the stuff under ==General==) is two and a half pages long... even at 1280x1024 there is more than a page of stuff. Would anyone object if I moved it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion instructions? Pete 10:27, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You took the keys right from my keyboard. Support strenously. Not only is it currently long, but it should be longer, so that many of the somewhat cursorily defined matters which are covered in more depth on the "Deletion policy" page, could be fully and comprehensively covered as far as they pertain to the Votes for deletion page. This would not only shorten the page by removing content, but should have a systemic effect of reducing spuriously added content, if a more in depth and detailed explanation of what should not be listed on Votes for deletion served to make the criteria clearer. This is of course assuming that people read the page :-/ -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 21:44, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

The instructions should probably just be removed - they're already on wikipedia:deletion policy, which we ask people to read before listing anything. Of course, they don't read deletion policy, but they don't read the top of this page either, so that's no loss. Martin 21:51, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Martin. A brief link to "Deletion policy" is all that should be required. For one thing, it means that deletion policy is not stated in one place and then summarised (incompletely) in another. --Morven 22:35, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well maybe not just be removed. It might be a good idea to reorganize the Deletion page first. Maybe even split it in two or three different pages. (how to decide which pages should be listed on Vfd; how to decide what to do about pages which have been the full seven pages on Vfd; how should administrators use their page deletion responsibility in general) Well, it's just a thought... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 22:39, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

Given the broad brush of support for removing detail from this page, I went ahead and did it... leaving a simple link to the Deletion policy page as Morven suggested. I think a re-organising/tightening of the that page, as you suggest, Cimon, isn't a bad idea either.. however I think it is a separate issue which didn't have to be solved for the preamble to be removed from here. (NB this talk page is now 5KB larger than VfD!) Pete 15:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Does someone know how to turn the letters of the "Read and understand" note at the top of the page to 36-point, or at the very least into bright red letters? (maybe both) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 17:08, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

Inter-VfD links

Should we not have links to VfD/copyvio, VfD/language and so on at the main VfD page? I'd put them there myself, but I wouldn't want to tread on any toes. Dysprosia 14:27, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've been thinking of adding something in the style of History of Germany or list of people... Martin 14:55, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I disliked what I saw as 'clutter' at the top of the page so got rid out of it (see section above). If the consensus is to begin putting it back then I won't kick up a huge fuss... this page isn't in the main namespace after all, so as long its functional. Pete 15:52, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Dysprosia and have tried to implement Martin's idea. Any objections? Angela 11:10, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

I do. What are we gaining? Pete 11:16, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The floating table isn't rendering proplerly in Mozilla Firebird, by the way. It's clashing with the ToC. Dysprosia 11:20, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted it and put it on this page for discussion until the Firebird problem is sorted out. I think having all the links on that page is a good idea rather than having them linked to only from the policy page. The table idea was supposed to be less cluttering. Dysprosia, what exactly do you mean it is clashing with the TOC? Does it do that on other pages like History of Germany? Angela 11:30, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

No, not on History of Germany, oddly enough -- I think it's because there's not much intro text on VfD to dispace the ToC. Dysprosia 11:40, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ok, got a new browser... What has Firebird got against <small> tags? I have moved them around a bit and it seems ok on version 6.0.1. Any improvement? Angela 12:04, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to check screen size issues. I see what the problem is now. I have removed the underscores from the links so they shouldn't overlap the table now. Any more problems formatting wise? Angela

Alternatively, Tannin's latest implementation may be a better option. Avoids all that HTML nonsense. Angela 12:31, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

Given that the majority view is to have the links here as well as the policy page (hmm I wonder if we have computer science articles on delegation and separation of concerns yet? :-) ), I vote for the current layout (Tannin's). If we were to use just the one HTML tag I'd re-introduce the <CENTER> tag on the first line but that really is down to aesthetic preferences. Pete 19:04, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

re-additions

I removed the recently added "please add a VfD notice to a page on VfD" and "please add to archives" message at the top of this page. This information is in Wikipedia:Deletion Policy and deletion guidelines. Can we avoid getting back to the situation where we have pages (particularly on low screen res monitors) of waffle before getting to the juice. The overwhelming majority of users of this page are old lag users (unlike other pages). Newcomers are are already strongly advised to read the surrounding pages. Pete 11:22, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just added the standard VfD notice to two pages that were listed on VfD but did not have that notice. I very much agree with the sentiment of getting rid of extraneous cruft (I assume that's what you mean by "waffle" and "juice") but maybe in this case it really is needed. Axlrosen 04:03, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yep, cruft is the more computer-y word for what I meant. Maybe it is, and if it gets put back again it is not something I care about enough to revert a second time, but the people who tend to list things on VfD are old hands, and are likely to know what they are supposed to do, but just can't be bothered. Pete 08:10, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not necessarily can't be bothered. Perhaps they just forget. MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith. (my first ever meatball link) :) --Angela 19:38, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)

In at least two instances lately, I've put things on the VfD page and when I got back to add the boilerplate to the proposed page, somebody had beaten me to it. The slowness of the server might be a participating factor. RickK 20:55, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

more re-additions

I've removed all this stuff that's just been added to the top of the page. I don't feel it is in the appropriate place and it just takes up too much room. I don't even understand what the latter part is about. Angela 04:22, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

1. When in doubt, don't delete.
2. A vote needs to have a justification for it to be of value. Just writing "Delete" doesn't add much value.

Letting people know why would add much value to the membership. If there are errors or the article is placed in such a way as to not add to the value of the encyclopedia, then stating why would alleviate certain frustration of a member who may be trying to be a positive constructive contributor.

Viewing comments and discussing what might be wrong may be done by_____________

I agree with Angela. I therefore intend to remove the deletion notice boilerplate too. We all know about it, even if we don't do it. Martin 18:25, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand. I therefore intend to remove the deletion notice boilerplate too from where? RickK 01:00, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think he meant from the top of the VfD page. Angela

Some sort of instruction is important for this metapage, and here's why...all metapages need to be written with the assumption that a new-user-who-wants-to-help is reading it. All users have the right to nominate articles for deletion. It is in our interest to make the process as understandable as possible. Wikipedia:Deletion policy is still written in such legalese that *I* can barely understand it. With that said, this metapage needs a touch of instructions and the boilerplate. IMHO :) Kingturtle 00:57, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some minimal boilerplate is needed here, I think. My memory does not hold well the sort of data like the standard phrasing of a VfD notice or the exact title of the page itself. Keeping the standard VfD notice here available for cut and paste means that it is not a few mouse clicks away, and when the site is sluggish this may make a difference between a completed and an abandoned or incomplete edit. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:53, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The exact phrasing is irrelevant. Newcomers will rapidly learn that a boilerplate is recommended by the expedient of viewing other pages on this list. The boilerplate text is recommended but not required. If someone misses off the deletion notice someone else will fix it - not the end of the world. If you want a store of cut and paste text I recommend notepad or your homepage. Martin 02:17, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you can't remember the full boilerplate then just write: Listed on [[Votes for deletion]] --mav 05:52, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

I added a short explanation of vote format to the top [of VfD]. I think it helps clarify the possible multiple outcomes and should simplify tabulation. It's intended to help the people who carry out deletions moreso than help new people. Daniel Quinlan 02:34, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

It's not useful. The format for "voting" should be obvious from reading the article. Most people are managing to vote clearly enough - we get a mere handful of unsigned votes out of all those cast. Martin 02:40, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Of those, most are people who know to sign, but forget in the heat of battle. The remainder are sock puppets, who don't wanna sign. -- Finlay McWalter 01:21, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Boilerplate again

Listen, I've been forgetting to place the VfD template on the articles I nominate here. It would really help me to have the template listed atop the VfD metapage. Last time I put it there, some users were quite adamant about removing it. I don't see what the big deal is. The template should be as easy to access as possible. Listing it takes very little space. Kingturtle 01:36, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just stick it (and other templates) on my home page. It can't get much easier than that. Daniel Quinlan 02:51, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think I was probably the most vocal about that particular issue. My gripe was that all these popular utility pages which have a list of current concerns/issues in them (Im thinking VfD, Vandalism in progess, Conflicts between users, etcc...) begin with pages of preamble.. particularly on lower res screens. In the particular case of VfD the preamble was repeated on Wikipedia:Deletion policy and these two pages in addition to repeating each other sometimes were contradictory in their advice/spelling out of policy. My idea (which reveals how much object oriented programming I have to do these days!) was to do things only once and separate out the two concerns - the list of general advice and then the current concerns on another. However having tried to explain why I think my position is consistent, I really don't care that much anymore if other people (and you are not the first) want it another way... one possibility... put the preamble at the end (so,,...ermmm,,, its postamble) so that regular users of the page don't have to scroll past it everytime (the server merely has to parse it from database to text everytime someone loads the page.. which for this page is hundreds if not thousands of times a day). Those who do want the preamble can then scroll to the end.... however I think if this were implemented there would be an outcry about how silly (read: unfamiliar) it looks! Pete 22:09, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See my comment, 9 Nov, above. Martin 20:18, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What is the big deal about keeping the boilerplate off of the VfD page? Please put it back. The boilerplate saves people lots of time. Maybe you don't need it, but it helps other people. I really don't understand why a boilerplate that helps people cannot be placed on the page. What is the big deal? Kingturtle 21:37, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How does it save time? So people bookmark wikipedia:deletion policy instead of wikipedia:votes for deletion - seems equivalent to me. Or they can copy it from another page to be deleted. I don't see that it's needed, and I feel that it's unhelpful to raise this particular piece of advice above others. Martin 23:58, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Step out of your shoes. I realize the system you suggest saves time for you. Now how about a system that saves time for me. People have different styles and different habits. I'm sure that when I tell you how having a boilerplate on VfD would save me time, you will respond with advice about how I can change my habits and how can use other strategies to save my time. You have answsered my question "What is the big deal about keeping the boilerplate off of the VfD page?" with another question, and you have not answered my question.

Do you really need a blow-by-blow explanation of how it would save me time? Do I really need to take 10 minutes to figure out how exactly to explain how I work at my keyboard? Could you please answer my initial question? Kingturtle 01:02, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought I did. "I don't see that it's needed, and I feel that it's unhelpful to raise this particular piece of advice above others". Note that having the boilerplate on VfD wastes time for me, because it's more text to be parsed and downloaded and scrolled past. Which places us at opposites, sadly.

Further, I note that the boilerplate is in dispute, and I'd rather have a dispute over deletion policy on wikipedia:deletion policy. If we're going to move to a more prescriptive system, a la Daniel Quinlan, it should be discussed there, not edit warred on the top of VfD. Note that our last heavy discussion over boilerplate text was due in no small part to a mismatch in recommendation between VfD text and deletion policy text. Martin 01:16, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, I put the boilerplate back in. C'mon folks, imagine a newbie trying to get into step with this system, wouldn't they want to have at least brief instructions on what to do? Yes, the previous 2.5 pages of instructions was too much, but that does not justify killing the entire patient. At least have a 100 word description of what to do if you list something on VfD. Fuzheado 01:22, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fuzheado, the boilerplate seems to be opposed by many. I noticed how after the boilerplate was removed, it was gradually added back. I'm removing it again, until there is a consensus about what to do. -- Mattworld 02:05, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm a relative newbie and I wish the boilerplate were there. I had to go searching for what I was supposed to add to the page I was nominating for deletion. I would have then felt more welcome to jump into the more complex workings of the community. moink 19:13, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have replaced the boilerplate reminder in, I hope, a more acceptable form. As a simple matter of pragmatics, when it was removed the number of times a VfD tag was not added to a candidate article increased dramatically. VfD tags on articles are very important if an author is to be given a fair chance of defending her work in a deletion discussion. To omit or remove VfD tags is duplicitous. Anjouli 21:23, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)