Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 7 January 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78Auto-archiving period: 25 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Article Rescue Squadron This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron Deletion (defunct) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion HIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "class" is not recognizedHIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "importance" is not recognizedHIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "nested" is not recognized

• WT:AFD

Archives

For discussions that have not been well-archived (before 2004), the page history of the Articles for deletion page has to be used as a contingency archive. One can look in the Deletion log to obtain date and time of a deletion, then look in the page history of VfD near that time to see which edit regards the unlisting of the page, then view the previous version. Misplaced Pages utilities/Page titles to be deleted – edit history before 13:45, 19 May 2002 (UTC) – also see its talk page), histories go back to November 2001 Votes for Deletion – edit history (22:22, 15 May 2002 (UTC) to 06:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)) Votes for Deletion – edit history (04:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC) to 22:58, 20 September 2004 UTC)) Votes/Articles for Deletion – edit history (00:03, 21 September 2004 (UTC) to Current) Old VfD archive index (now AfD archives 1–31) 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, 5 Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4, Z5, Z6 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Renamed Articles for deletion about this time. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Outcome table

1. "Slight merge", Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Shorthands.
2. ^ The page history must remain visible to satisfy GFDL attribution, but the merged/removed page may be moved to a Talk subpage of the merge destination, per CBM's comment Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Redirects for discussion page. Also mentioned at Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#A troublesome case.

Feel free to add rows to this table. Flatscan (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading discussion at #Mergers at AfD and elsewhere, I have become aware of various metrics that distinguish AfD outcomes. I have collected them into the table above. I think a table like this could be useful in Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion. Flatscan (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I proposed adding a subsection including this table at Misplaced Pages talk:Guide to deletion#Outcomes subsection. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No more requirement to notify creator?

I just found in my watchlist that a page I spent weeks creating was turned into a redirect, even though the AFD result was to merge. No content was actually merged. I notice that there is no longer a requirement to notify the creator or primary contributor. Why was this change made? It would have been nice to find out prior to the AFD discussion being closed that there was going to be a discussion, so that I could have been involved in it. Instead it was wiped out by drive-by edit accumulators with no discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 18:47Z

If you spent weeks creating it, why wasn't it on your watchlist?—Kww(talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You apparently don't know how big watchlists can get. It was in my watchlist, however I was away for the last few days and it was pushed off the bottom. And again I'll reiterate that I was never notified about it. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 19:12Z

I don't think it was ever required, but it's considered a courtesy. That said, just because it was merged with very little content, it doesn't mean you couldn't add in some more of the content to make a more perfect merge. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't merged at all. The AFD result was merge, but it was just deleted and replaced with a redirect. Nothing was merged and the editor who turned it into a redirect even says so in the edit summary: "nobody is merging this... redirect for now". Isn't the proper action to do nothing until the merge actually occurs? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 19:12Z

There are any number of good faith or bad faith reasons someone may have done that, but either way it's a mistake. And either way, the article wasn't deleted, only redirected. It should be easy to fix. Feel free to revert the redirect, even. Ideally, someone should complete the merge properly. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• There never has been a "requirement" (AFAIK). It is considered a courtesy and a well attended one at that. To top it off, twinkle does it for you if you use that. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

comments several of them, some are personal opinion: 1) No, there's not a requirement to notify anyone that a page has been nominated for deletion. 2) As a courtesey, they should. 3) If they are butt-heads, they might not. But Misplaced Pages is for everyone (including the butt-heads). 4) I wish it was a requirement because I've been in that boat too! 5) This "twinkle" thing looks pretty darned cool. 6) You probably shouldn't call anyone a "butt-head" on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else for that matter...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, alongside other insults, "butt-head" seems kind of quaint :). And twinkle is very helpful. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You punk kids and your newfangled gadgets! Back in my day we had to submit our edits through pony express! It took 3 months to check your watchlist, and edit conflicts were resolved through pistol duels at 15 paces! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 20:46Z

Uphill, in the snow, both ways. And talk page communications were handled over RFC 1217. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and Brian, if you'd like we can either revert the redirect or your can edit an old revision of the page to merge content to the target article. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Already done. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 21:23Z

The merge is now complete. Given that there is no evidence of notability for any individual on the list, the only material which needed to be transferred to the target article was a list of references to justify the figure of 250 casualties. I really hate it when people argue for merging when there isn't any information to be merged ... that's what causes messes like this to happen.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's your argument. I would have provided my counterargument, except I was never given that chance. This list has been kept in the past. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-13 01:16Z

No one has deprived you of anything. If you believe that there is more information from the article that should be carried over in the merge, it's all available in the article history.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But back to the fundamental complaint. It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to redirect most deleted pages to a userspace

Everyday large amounts of well referenced material gets deleted with WP:Articles for deletion. I propose that all articles which do not have copyright violations, biography violations, etc. be moved to the creator's user space with a link in the AfD closing edit summary.

So for example:

• If I created the article The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film) the article,
• after AfD would be moved to User:Inclusionist/The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film), and
• the closing administrator would write in the edit summary:
  Deleted "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film)" ‎in AFD and moved to User:Inclusionist/The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film).

The benefits of moving deleted material to user space are numerous:

1. Future authors would not have to create content which was deleted before.
2. Deleted articles could be improved upon and eventually be resubmitted for recreation
3. AfD's would not be as hostile, since the contributors to the article would know the article could still be improved upon and submitted for recreation later.
4. Users' activity on the wikipedia is falling. New editors, who naturally do not know wikipolicy, often create new articles that do not satisfy wikipedia's stringent Kafkaesque bureaucracy, and those articles are swifty deleted. These deletions deter new editors from contributing to Misplaced Pages.

Caveat: In my experience, policy pages are frequented by veteran editors who fervently believe and enforce that policy page, and are resistant to change. So when deciding the merits of this suggestion, please keep in mind that these negative responses are not necessarily reflective of all wikipedians, but more reflective of supporters of the stats quo on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks. Inclusionist (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Anent this see , the talk page on userfication appears to be exactly what you wish to discuss. Collect (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you so much collect. You deserve the barnstar I gave you. Thanks again. Inclusionist (travb) (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Counter-proposal: Notify authors pages can be userfied, but don't USERFY automatically.

Have the closing admin notify the principal authors that the page was deleted through AFD and that it is eligible for temporarily userfication upon request from any administrator. The message should include instructions for contacting administrators, a link to WP:Userfication, and a statement that says such articles should not be kept in user space indefinately, they should either be improved to the point they could survive AFD, or if that is not possible, deleted.

Many AFDs are due to notability issues, and unless something happens to change the subject's notability, there will never be an article that could withstand AFD. In these cases, the only reason to USERFY is so the editor can copy the content to another location. For this reason, anyone getting USERFIED deleted content should also be told they must copy the edit log for GFDL purposes should they republish the content elsewhere, and they cannot republish it elsewhere except in compliance with the all of the terms of the GFDL.

In some cases, the subject is not notable now but will likely become notable later if certain things happen. In these cases, the editor may want to preserve the article and its history on his local drive, update the local copy as the person's notability rises, and when it gets high enough to survive AFD, upload the new article. In this case, he'll have a choice: Either request a 2nd un-deletion, as his userfied version will be long-re-deleted, and upadate it, or update his version as a new article and put the previously-copied history in the talk page of the new article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I like that 99% of your suggestion a hell of a lot. I would give you a barnstar too, but that would cheapen collect's barnstar I gave him today, so I will wait until your next wonderful idea. :)

Mind if yourself or I move this suggestion to Wikipedia_talk:Userfication? I could create a link to it there. Either way--whatever you perfer.

There is a very interesting conversation going on their about how long userfied content should exist. It is very similar to your suggestion. Inclusionist(travb) (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think that as long that it is clear that userification of an article bound for deletion is certainly possible, and that users have to be aware that a CSD is recreation of a deleted article without significant change, there really doesn't need to be any significant change to the process. If there is requested userification, then yes, a link in the admin closing to the user page would be good to have. --MASEM 05:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree Masem, I was thinking the same thing. Which leads me to the next question (next section) how can we let users know about the userfication option? travb (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist: No, I don't mind. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any deletion tags mention that users can request userfication of deleted content

Do any current deletion tags mention: Misplaced Pages:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content? Most wikipedians don't know this option is available to them. travb (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Heck -- I didn't know about it until I found it pretty much by accident. Well -- not really accident, I had run into the term on AfD and MfD before, and figured the article had to exist somewhere. As for likelihood of current tags mentioning it? Nil. Collect (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm a big fan of userfication of deleted articles. Why? See the West Essay. Had 62 articles bombarded with AFD'd in a short period of time. So far, 30+% have been restored through additional research, editing, and even merging to existing articles of the same subject but slightly different titles. More than one admin actually refused to "userfy" because they said that the articles were hopeless.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And to be fair, more than one admin offered to userfy them for you if they were deleted.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody Else's problem

Some shameless promotion...nah, not really. But I noticed a problem at AFD today that I saw often before, so I wrote a short essay at Misplaced Pages:Somebody Else's Problem. I think it might echo the concerns of some people here, so I am kindly asking for input. Feel free to update, change and add to it as much as you like, it's a wiki after all. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It actually goes further, and the cases where only sources are missing are the easy ones. It has recently happened to me more than once, that "articles" without any useful content that I had submitted to afd were kept on the basis that "theoretically, a useful article about this topic could be written". Of course, none of those who voted such stepped forward to actually do so, and if I had had the resources to do it myself, I wouldn't have started an afd in the first place. The result: Users looking for information on those topics will find a page on Wikipeida, but no information, which leaves them with a much lousier impression than if they hadn't found anything at all. It surprises me again and again that what would be mercilessly eradicated on dewiki as "article requests" and to make room for something better is preserved on enwiki as purportedly valuable. --Latebird (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I take a somewhat different view. The responsibility for fixing an article should remain with the nominator. That is, if you think an article sucks enough to nominate it for deletion, you should "own" the cleanup if you're wrong. Kind of like "loser pays" litigation. Frankly, the issue I have with deletionists is that they seem much more eager to nominate something for deletion than they do to actually improve it, even if it's been demonstrated worthy of inclusion. This would solve that, but I doubt such an expectation would ever be ratified. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So if I don't have the resources or the time to create something better, I should just leave the existing crap alone? Reality is, that very often it is not shown that the actually existing article is "worthy of inclusion". It is only shown that the topic might in theory allow a decent article. In fact, many keep votes completely ignore the actual article, and simply say "this is an interesting and noteworthy topic". Shouldn't those folks own up to their convictions according to WP:BURDEN? Note that when I see the possibility to rescue an article nominated by someone else with material available to me, I will immediately do so, usually while the afd is still running. I have also happily withdrawn many of my own afds when someone else managed to do that. Reducing this to a war between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", just so that you can point a finger at someone, is really not very helpful. Asking that a nominator should be forced into some kind of "ownership" also seems rather strange. --Latebird (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article is encyclopedic in topic and the current content isn't worthwhile, then the responsible thing to do is remove as much of the content as needed to render it appropriate--stubs are perfectly fine to have. If someone says "this entire article is crap" and nominates it for deletion, they're really declaring that the article should be nuked because they can't be bothered to clean it up. I, for one, think that the proper response to such an irresponsible nomination--that is, when a nominator has nominated an encyclopedic topic for deletion because the current article stinks--would be an obligation for the nominator to go fix the article in question. That is, it takes a nominator who can't be bothered to delete the bad parts of an article to create such a "somebody else's problem" in the first place, so the best response is to explicitly make it their responsibility. Problem solved! Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it unlikely that any blanket "rule" can be created to be fair to all editors and to the encyclopedia itself. I think most responsible and thoughtful people will agree with Jclemens that there exists a problem with editors being more willing to tag and run than to put in the work. (For myself, I am actually concerned about this happening with cleanup and other tags more than AfD, because at least AfD has a process in place to make sure something happens. Cleanup tags routinely sit for over two years before they are dealt with.) But anyway, while I share Jclemens antipathy for tag-and-running, I cannot endorse the notion that a tagging editor automatically should have responsibility. I may recognize, for example, that an article on some obscure physics topic is shit, but I may lack the knowledge to make it an acceptable article. In one such case I went to the relevant Wikiproject and found an editor who was willing to fix things up, and that was gratifying. But that isn't always possible.

On the other hand, sometimes the answer may be just what Jclemens said: Hack away until you have a stub that is clean and accurate. I totally endorse the notion that there is nothing inherently wrong with stubs. And again, while I have not done this to save an article at AfD, I have gone to clean up an article and found that only a stub was needed and/or was possible (by me). And that quality stub looks better for us than the heaps of dung that occasionally show up as articles. Unschool 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So I should first blank an "article" (= "delete the bad parts") that only contains trivialities before submitting it to AFD? The idea of placing the blame on the person who noticed the problem really runs counter to the whole volunteering idea of Misplaced Pages. In a way, that's also a symptom of the "someone else's problem" attitude, only that you have an easy scapegoat to pont at. Throughout history, it has often been considered the easiest "solution" (and always a fallacy) to shoot the messenger. Assuming that AFDs are submitted because people "can't be bothered" to do real work also runs directly counter to WP:AGF, and offends me personally.

Misplaced Pages is long past the point where the number of articles should be of any concern. We should direct our focus primarily on quality now. If you have a quick way to fix the problem, by all means do that (as do I). But an AFD must be valid (and have a chance of succeeding) if for whatever reason that doesn't happen. A non-article should not be kept just because someone claimed it could be fixed in the debate. If by the end of the AFD the problem isn't actually fixed in the article, then it should be deleted. That would eliminate the absurd "this topic could be a nice article" keep votes. AFD debates must be about the text that actually exists at the time of debate, and not about something that only exists in someone's imagination. Before submitting an AFD I always put myself in the shoes of an unsuspecting reader and ask: "If I was interested in the topic, would this page help me?" If the answer is no, then it is harmful to the Encyclopedia and should not be left there in that form. --Latebird (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Latebird, my endorsement of taking a machete to an article (I don't like calling it "blanking", and that's not what anyone has suggested, as far as I've noticed) does not equate to endorsing Jclemens's position on mandating that the tagger must fix the problem. I'm simply noting that some people appear to live just to tag articles, and it would be nice if they could also do some of the work some of the time. I would not mandate it, I would just encourage it. Unschool 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Blanking an article would also be a demonstration of laziness. If it's really meritless and shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages in the first place, the nominator has nothing to fear by just nominating it outright. If the article has some content worth keeping and some not, for about any value of "some", it's a simple matter of reading and editing to excise the not-worthwhile content. Without the automated AfD tools, it should take about the same amount of time to WP:BOLDly remove the fluff, cruft, or whatnot as it would to nominate the article by hand, and that is the basis by which I call the failure to do so laziness. It is, in fact, WP:AGFing, in that it doesn't attribute malice to such an action. I'd be surprised if any participant in this discussion hasn't run across someone who engages in deletion nominations that, if uncritically accepted, would have the net effect of POV pushing. Requiring articles to be fixed at any point (aside from promotions like GA/FA, and legal issues) violates WP:TIND. Making it the nomintor's obligation to fix a nominated article places the obligation in line with GA/FA work: you make the nomination, you inherit the work. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Submitting an AFD is among other things both an admission of defeat and a call for help. If then some other editors jump in and tell me "hey, I think that would be an interesting topic, now you have to write an actual article about it whether you like to or not", then that only adds insult to injury. You keep turning WP:BURDEN on it's head, without a good reason to do so. This line of thought renders the AFD process ineffective, because it will prevent valid and necessary nominations, hurting the quality of Misplaced Pages overall. On the other hand, "if you want it kept, make it worth keeping" is proven to work very well. --Latebird (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've never seen an AfD nomination that was an admission of defeat or a call for help. WP:BURDEN applies to specific clauses in an article, WP:BEFORE applies to the articles existence, or lack thereof. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So what is it then if someone says "sorry guys, I can't see anything useful in this"? Maybe you expect that declaration of defeat spelled out a little too literally... WP:BURDEN applies to everything in an article, and WP:BEFORE (a ser of procedural recommendations) does not replace it. Of course we should keep articles that are likely to be improved. What we seem to do instead, is to keep articles where improvement is only theoretically possible, no matter how ununlikely. --Latebird (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosher tax

The article on Kosher tax is a canard in itself. This article makes a political statement and is therefore, not an encyclopedic entry, and should be deleted.--68.220.226.199 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like an editing issue than a deletion issue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look. It's a well cited article, and the one major claim that was in no way supported was easily removed. I see nothing wrong with an incerdibly thoroughly cited article which completely and handily dismantles a lie. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked into it as well, and agree, there's nothing majorly wrong with the article. This post looks like an anon editor with some POV issues of his own. Unschool 04:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Most likely someone who feels that any writing about the lie is propagating the lie. I've seen the mentality before. ThuranX (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

All articles here should be so well cited.--RandomHumanoid 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I do an umbrella nomination

What do I do and what do I do with the templates to nominate several articles in one entry?--Ipatrol (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Go through the process on the first article. Edit the AFD, and then add a list of

*'''{{la|article name}}'''

to it. Then, go to each additional article, add the AFD notice. Place a redirect in each subsequent AFD to the main AFD.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Using templates to vote

I think it is time for us to relook into template voting.

I know this has been rejected before but there are advantages in making people vote using templates rather than current text base votes. However a critical part of the rationale was forgotten in the past discussions.

Current method of voting is not machine readable. This makes it difficult to detect foul play. It is highly inefficient to parse the pages as is. Mind that this is less about vote counting consensus and more about identifying sockpuppets, meatpuppets and other kinds of foul play we do not want in AFD.

I am trying to develop a tool that parses afds to detect meat/sock puppetry.

-- Cat 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, no machine can examine the reasons behind each comment, as this is not, strictly speaking, a "vote" at all. And since sockpuppets can not actually provide stronger reasons than already presented, their presence should be ignorable. What is more to the point, moreover, is that a person closing a discussion should note the strength of reasons considered instead of just stating "consensus says" something. Collect (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates, no templates... sock puppets and meat puppets can use or not use templates like any other wikipedian, so the permittance or disallowance of usage of templates doesn't change anything. – sgeureka 13:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the previous two comments, using templates will make it harder to detect sock/meat puppetry at AfD, not easier. And why should AfD be machine readable when admins are supposed to be reading all of the discussion and weighing strength of arguments and how they match policy in determining consensus? This would move us further from that, not closer.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's incumbent upon the administrators to ignore spurious reasons. Not to mention the participants at AFD. If someone says something patently false, refute it. Randomran (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the naked eye a {{Oppose}} would look no different than Oppose. For a machine it is hard to tell if the word "oppose" was used as a comment or as a vote. In addition it is very hard to tell who casted the vote or comment as there are too many flavors of casting your vote. The template would leave an invisible and machine readable signature. I am not talking about vote counting mechanics to determine the outcome of one AFD but scanning all afds for foul play. There is a difference.

Aside from a template there also is numberlist option with one section for support votes, another for oppose votes and another for discussions and etc.

-- Cat 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you still want to have machine-readable vote templates in discussions that aren't votes? And what has this got to do with abusive sockpuppets? This looks like a solution looking for a problem. – sgeureka 10:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Long AfDs?

Out of curiosity, is anybody keeping track of the "longest AfDs"? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD Wikietiquette section

I think it might be worth changing the "AfD Wikietiquette" section about nominating multiple articles for deletion. In all the time I've been involved in AfDs, it's been a very very frequent occurrence that big group nominations get speedy-closed for one reason or another, and almost always with the suggestion that the nominator re-nominate each article separately. While I'm not sure what the wording should be changed to, I feel the current wording may be misleading to someone unfamiliar with the process. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick suggestion: replace "a large number" with simply "a number", plus a hint to carefully evaluate homogeneity. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably good. "A few" or "several" might also be good, but I'm sure there are cases where mass-noms of 10 or more articles would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

This happened today - and I noticed a similar thing happening yesterday. The number and name of the case appears outside the box after I close the case. My process is to add {{Closing}}, then remove {{Closing}} and {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}, and paste in {{subst:at}} '''RESULT'''. ~~~~ at the top with my comments inside '''RESULT''', and paste {{subst:ab}} at the bottom and save. Is there something in that process that is incorrect? SilkTork * 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just place the {{subst:at}} '''RESULT'''. ~~~~ above the section header and you're fine. --Amalthea 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork * 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Closure by non-Admin involved-party editor: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eugene Sings!

Is this closure by American Eagle legitimate? Can an involved party simply pre-empt an AfD by redirecting the articles under discussion? This would not appear to be legitimate (such consensus as there was was for deletion, not mere merge & redirect). Is it something that needs to be taken to WP:DRV to be corrected? Hrafn_Stalk 09:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Redirecting/merging during an AfD is acceptable though rarely done (As it tends to prempt discussion). Any administrator can revert the closure and he probably should not have closed that debate (though I have made that same exact move many times before I realized it was frowned upon). As for the outcome, ask yourself if deletion is really necessary. Will redirection/merger improve the encyclopedia? Is there some portion of the page history that needs to be removed? Protonk (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• If this was just a one-off, I'd probably let it slide. But it is part of a pattern of copying material under AfD to new articles & unilaterally denominating articles nominated by myself on a related AfD. American Eagle has turned these AfDs into a farce. Hrafn_Stalk 09:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with this. Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure indicates that American Eagle's actions were wrong both in that the user was involved, and in that the decision wasn't clear. Even if American Eagle were an admin the closure was inappropriate because of the user's involvement, and because it is not clear that the decision is to merge. Added to which the closure was too soon. I'm not one for wikilawering over points of procedure, and if the end result was what everyone wanted, then there wouldn't be an issue - but in this case we have the nominator objecting. I don't think this is a case for DRV, but there are sufficient concerns for the closure to be overturned and the AfD allowed to run its course. SilkTork * 10:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Someone reverted the closure. Seems like the right thing to do (Rather than DRV). Protonk (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I should have mentioned that here. I did inform those concerned: and . SilkTork * 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I apologize for creating this mess. The reason I did so was, it appeared that merge/redirect was the consensus, so I did that. The nominator himself didn't oppose to my doing it. Then, all pages were redirecting and there was no reason to continue the discussion. However, if more users would like to comment, that is fine. Sorry. TheAE talk/sign 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

American Eagle: how can you possibly interpret "I see no need for them to continue as redirects" as that I "didn't oppose" your proposal for redirects? What possible good faith reason can you have for making this gross misrepresentation of my comment? Hrafn_Stalk 03:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters