Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Can we please stop listing THE ENTIRE WEEK in one place?

1/4 MB load - This no longer make sense. This page should only contain links to individual day pages. Please voice your agreement Lotsofissues 01:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I do agree that 1/4 MB is a bit absurd especially when an article gets a notice to not go over 32 KB. Cburnett 02:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • You might find the following links useful: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/Today and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday —Wahoofive (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This gets suggested about once a quarter - and rejected every time. I will again voice my unambiguous opposition. DO NOT STOP LISTING THE ENTIRE WEEK. Users who don't like it now have lots of options. But some of us (many?) view it as a responsibility to follow the VfD discussions in order to see if new evidence has been presented which should cause us to change a vote. The most efficient way I have to fulfill that obligation is to load the entire page (which admittedly takes some time) and then use the find function to skim through the list looking for my own username. Yes, other people have proposed other techniques. None of them work for me. Further, I think that it is essential that at least some people do review the entire list in order to identify common trends and patterns. Those observations are used to propose policy changes, improve the instructions and generally benefit Wikipedia in all sorts of subtle ways. Rossami (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Can the view all option not be placed as the main introductory page? Maybe this quarter the load has grown overwhelming enough to justify the move? Thanks for the /log/today link. Lotsofissues 16:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are damn good technical reasons not to list the whole week on the main deletion discussions portal, as detailed on wikitech-l by Tim Starling: [1]. From that post:

VFD puts great strain on the server as it is, because the server is
forced to regularly render the whole page, consisting of a few megabytes
of HTML. If you can break it down into small sections, I think that will
be a win for performance, even if there is less opportunity for caching.

That is: THIS PAGE ALONE puts noticeable and undesirable strain on the server architecture in its present form, as declared by the people who run the Wikimedia machines.

(There's also the antisocial nature of it: requiring people to load over a megabyte before being allowed to enter VFD discussions, unless they happen to know who has a list of day links, is profoundly exclusionary.)

You may like the all-on-one-page version of VFD, but it's actually becoming a significant technical problem.

The all-on-one-page version should be much less of a strain if it's on a separate linked page for its fans, rather than being the default page pointed at by WP:VFD. - David Gerard 18:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

THANKS! :-) Lotsofissues 01:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

oldvfd template

Following the template standardisation competition a new {{oldvfd}} template has been created. This uses the new standard talk page scheme and shows an old VFD in much the same way as we have old PR and old FAC nominations listed. I think we should start using this for a nice and consistent way of showing the progression of an article. violet/riga (t) 09:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Austrian postal codes

It seems like all of these articles still have the vfd tag even though their discussion has been closed. Is there more to the process, or does someone just need to get around to it? --Dmcdevit 00:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barefoot and pregnant

Is this one sufficiently old that the vfd notice can be taken off the page? 24.54.208.177 03:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear keep, so I closed it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

GRider sockpuppet theatre

Thryduulf requested (on WP:AN/I) a check into GRider and Tallyman's correlating behaviour. They have similarities, but there wasn't enough for me to be reasonably confident they were the same person. There does appear to be sockpuppet theatre going on here, though. A combination of reviewing edits, IP checks and a check with Tim Starling for further technical info lets me state with reasonable confidence that GRider, HERMiT cRAB, Tallyman, ..-. ..- -.-. -.- ..- and almost certainly Jonahhh are the same person. Furthermore, they have also set up accounts G Rider, HERMiT CRAB, HERMiT cRAB and TallyMan (note subtle variation). I've blocked the lot as sockpuppets. There's another bunch on associated IPs I'm still checking further.

I'd always thought GRider behaved oddly differently from a regular single-account editor, and this would explain it a bit - the sockpuppeteer, whoever it is, was treating it as a role account for particular types of edit and not bothering to humanise it much.

I eagerly await the no doubt perfectly innocent explanation in my email.

This particularly pisses me off because I actually completely agree with their view on school articles - I see no reason we shouldn't have an article on every high school in the world ever, if we have verifiable sources. But the way they've gone about it is completely unacceptable. With friends like these ... - David Gerard 12:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you allowed to ban things for being sock puppets? Kappa 12:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sock puppet. When it's for purposes of deceptive voting on strawpolls (e.g. VFD), damn right. When it's for purposes of policy violation, damn right. When it's for purposes of evading arb com sanctions, really damn right - David Gerard 12:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed Tallyman voting but I see it happened at least once :( I hope there's an innocent explanation. Kappa 13:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
However, David, on the high school articles, most of them are a few lines long and they include the same things as from the website. If the demand gets big enough, I would support the creation of WikiSchools. However, in the mean time, try to give WikiCities a shot for putting high schools in. Zscout370 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
At present I'm concerned with the blatant abuse of sockpuppetry rather than the reason for them :-) I have some pretty damn strong suspicions of the real user, but those are only suspicions at present. Investigating - David Gerard 14:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Simplified structure

The page was getting so long it was taking me 10 mins to load it each time, and was pretty unmanageable (to me) so I have been bold and simplified it.

I think this move will be welcomed by many users. However, if there is also a demand for the old very long page, let me know and I'll set up a Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) page, with a short-cut of WP:VfDL to cater for it too. Kind regards, jguk 18:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe what we can do is put resolved votes in the log already, removed them from the main VFD page. We can provide a link to the vote on the main page. Zscout370 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Drawback to this method: listings near the end of the day will always have fewer votes. I agree something had to be done though. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I know you are a smart person, Wahoo, but I think you missed what I said. You know that some pages that are put on VFD do not last the entire voting period. Some are usually speedied right away after being put on VFD. After the votes are done, a box is put around it saying the vote has been completed. My suggestion is to remove those from the main listing, place them in the log, and provide links. Zscout370 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
My comment was meant to apply to Jguk's original statement. Sorry I didn't make that clear. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
What I mean is, when you look at the new version of the page on April 6, you're most likely to click on the April 6 entry. Unless you're a VfD glutton for punishment, you won't click on the April 5 link, especially if you went there yesterday, so items nominated at 23:00 on April 5 won't get seen by as many people as they were up until now. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, btw. It's nice to be acknowledged as smart sometimes. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Why not try that too? Anything to make the pages more manageable. I am concerned that with the current length of each day's page we might soon have to move to a new page for each 12 hours. Kind regards, jguk 19:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Three more possibilities:
  1. Speedy redirects
  2. Remove the transclusion of very long discussions and replace them with a link to the discussion after they reach a certain length (say a full screen height)
  3. Forbid including the entirety of old VfD votes -- they should just have links.
—Wahoofive (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
2 and 3 of your list above are already the rule. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance for a discussion of untransclusion (though the usual rule has been closer to 5-7 screens in height depending). Every experienced editor should be bold and make those changes as necessary. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
#2 is only recommended on maintenance (although thank you for pointing me to that page, of which I was unaware), but I can't find any reference to #3, either there or on the Vfd guide. Anyway, I wasn't really thinking so much of entries with a million votes as those with very long rants by the page creator. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
In my experience, it's usually the ranting that makes you need a scorecard. A straightforward vote, even if long, isn't hard to figure out. I know I've written instructions on how to do 3 somewhere. They should probably be in the Guide now. And you're right - they were just strong recommendations, not requirements. Rossami (talk)

See also technical reasons (given above, email from Tim Starling) why the longform page being the default is a really bad idea, because this page alone was providing significant undesirable server load on the Wikimedia machines. (Templates in templates = Bad Idea. Templates in templates generating a couple of megabytes of text that can't be cached because it has to be generated fresh each time a user accesses it = Really Bad Idea.)

I think it's clear from the pro-longform comments that the longform page is in fact necessary for those who can handle it and are used to it. The previous version of VFD should do the job there just fine under a non-default name - David Gerard 19:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just set up Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form), with WP:VFDL as a shortcut - David Gerard 19:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! Much better. android↔talk 19:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have an additional concern with this chopped up view. It is moving new users even further away from the instructions on how to use the VfD process and how to effectively participate in the discussions. Users with an interest in this aspect of maintenance need to see the instructions and should read through a variety of other discussions if they want to participate effectively. We have carefully built up a set of norms and practices on this page. The mechanics of this page may feel clumsy but it reaches concensus an amazing amount of the time. We must find a way to get users to read the instructions and to review other discussions so they can understand those norms and practices. Everything-on-a-page has its problems but we could always say "read the instructions at the top of the page" or "look at other discussions". Now, I fear that we have lost some of our ability to help new users learn the unwritten rules of VfD. I understand the technical reasons described above but I am not yet convinced that they justify this change. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the new structure can be peppered with instructions as before. This should probably be done soon, actually — with the short form WP:VFD, people will actually be able to participate, so we should expect an influx of new voters - David Gerard 22:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank god, I suggested this a few years ago and got hissed away from Talk:VfD. Much better now. -- user:zanimum

This new simplified structure is an incredible improvement. Well done! --Canderson7 22:45, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?! The VfD page is smaller than its talk page! This is unnatural! The sky is coming down! RUN! JRM · Talk 01:55, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

This was a lot better although I wondered for a few seconds why the page had become so short! Thanks! Sjakkalle 07:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Please speedy revert this page to its previous format. I usually just search for my username in order to find the discussions I voted on and that interest me. Now it is necessary to open several pages to do so. Martg76 11:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks jguk , great improvement! Sietse 15:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool! But Current Votes section is so small now it's easy to miss it. Maybe make it in a frame and bold the dates. Grue 17:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Problem: the bots are not updating the long page correctly. See, someone's using it -- I bet you left that bug just to see how long it took someone to complain. Also, the "View only today's entries" is a redlink. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary - I left a note on AllyUnion's talk page so he can update the bot appropriately:) jguk 20:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate a 3 to 5 day forewarning before requesting a change. It would be nice to follow that up with the proper process of posting the necessary procedures of permitting the bot to do so on Wikipedia talk:Bots. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we have each vfd page also include links to the last seven days of open votes (at the top or something) so we don't have to go back to the main VfD page to get to it? --Dmcdevit 03:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Just remember to type WP:VFDL in the search box and you'll find the 7 day view, jguk 05:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_26&oldid=386722250"