RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion
Contents |
[edit] Closed Proposals
What do we do with deletion proposals that have closed? We should probably start an archive, right? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't quite decided. I was considering seeing if Pilbot could handle it, but perhaps I should leave it to the floor? Zero (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Move them to the article's talkpage. Or just keep them there in the first place. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Archive subpage(s), with a link to on the main. Also, I really dislike the closing format. If you were going to copy from Wikipedia, why didn't you copy afd top/afd bottom too?--ZooGuard (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't think the collapsing argument was the best way for us to go about closing discussions. I can bring it over if it's wanted. Zero (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Pibot's useless, I've set up an archive page manually instead. SophieWilder
16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Automagic would be better. WIGOs never get archived to the point it crushed the rss feed.
talk 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately a lot of automagic is broken as Trent and David figure out how many virgin sacrifices it takes to make the server play nice.
Radioactive Misanthrope 17:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately a lot of automagic is broken as Trent and David figure out how many virgin sacrifices it takes to make the server play nice.
- Automagic would be better. WIGOs never get archived to the point it crushed the rss feed.
- Pibot's useless, I've set up an archive page manually instead. SophieWilder
- I didn't think the collapsing argument was the best way for us to go about closing discussions. I can bring it over if it's wanted. Zero (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Move them to the article's talkpage. Or just keep them there in the first place. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
[edit] selecting for deletion
Is there a way to find pages with no hits older than say 1-2 years ? Hamster (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I ran through some of the Wikimedia help manuals but came up dry on searching by view count. I would say no, but I spent some time skimming through this to see if there was anything that sounded like it could be promoted to deletion. Zero (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- We don't even have logs going back two years. And if literally nobody's looked at it, why is it a problem? - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Re-opening inconclusive proposals
You can do that, right?
\m/ESSIAH 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Or just go ahead & delete & ride out the shitstorm. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Please Use this
Apparently we're slipping back into drive-by deletion with three pages in the past month just slapping the old deletion template on and not bothering with this page. Please get eyes on so deletions can happen instead of being left alone with a big red X. Zero (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Only one of those was a drive-by templating; the other cases had deletion-related comments/discussions on the article's talk pages, as per the established deletion process. If you want this page to supersede that process, you're going about it all wrong. As it stands now, this new system isn't easy to use (especially for users new to the site or to wikis in general), doesn't integrate with any related discussions about the merits of an article, stifles discussion into binary voting, is poorly documented with confusing and incomplete instructions, and isn't supported by any of the wiki's help or policy pages. Try fixing some of those problems so that it's a system everyone will be happy to use rather than just riding roughshod over these issues and interfering with people's ability to use the more familiar and intuitive system. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- By "everyone" you mean "you". It's already worked to catch a pile of drive-by deletions, and worked superlatively. The "community standards" page also says to use the intercom (a site notice on every fucking pageview), which hasn't been used in years and would almost certainly be considered unacceptable in practice. Thus, that section of the standards needs updating.
- Probably the best practical method to deal with drive-by deletion and its fans is to catch instances of it and transfer them here. Repeat until the perpetrators realise they can't just kill stuff quietly. Keep an eye on the deletion log for similar reasons - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I lolled at "kill stuff quietly". This system alerts those who might be concerned (ie people who edited the article in question) how? ħuman
20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- If it was on their Watchlist, they'd see the AfD note getting added to the article. In this way it's no worse than the previous deletion template into talk page discussion process at alerting people. Nullahnung (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's over-optimistic. If they check every edit to every item on their watchlist, they'll see it. If the person nominating the article writes "nominated for deletion" or a similar message in the edit summary (something that isn't covered in the [still woefully inadequate] instructions and seldom happens) and no further edits are made to the page before people watching it notice this edit summary in their watchlist, they'll see it. If not, they'll see what looks like a fairly small edit (the effect of adding a template) in their watchlist, and if they don't check the page every time they see a small edit they might remain completely unaware of the deletion discussion. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's over-optimistic. If they check every edit to every item on their watchlist, they'll see it. If the person nominating the article writes "nominated for deletion" or a similar message in the edit summary (something that isn't covered in the [still woefully inadequate] instructions and seldom happens) and no further edits are made to the page before people watching it notice this edit summary in their watchlist, they'll see it. If not, they'll see what looks like a fairly small edit (the effect of adding a template) in their watchlist, and if they don't check the page every time they see a small edit they might remain completely unaware of the deletion discussion. Wēāŝēīōīď
- If it was on their Watchlist, they'd see the AfD note getting added to the article. In this way it's no worse than the previous deletion template into talk page discussion process at alerting people. Nullahnung (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I lolled at "kill stuff quietly". This system alerts those who might be concerned (ie people who edited the article in question) how? ħuman
[edit] Ordering
(brings fresh paint to bike shed) I think that the Delete arguments should go above the keep arguments, as they're the ones that start each AfD off. Bicyclewheel
20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, are you a bike commuter too? I just kinda took your name as a name. Anyways, yes, I agree. It just makes sense. I've noticed when I read them, I incorrectly assume that the deletes are responding to the keeps, until I remind myself that it's the other way. Ikanreed (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Look at the history of Template:Article for deletion discussion and its talk page - I had an edit war with its author over similar concerns.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't ride a bike :) My username is from Marcel Duchamp, and I was referring to WP:Parkinson's law of triviality. Bicyclewheel
10:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't ride a bike :) My username is from Marcel Duchamp, and I was referring to WP:Parkinson's law of triviality. Bicyclewheel
[edit] Instructions for what to do with archived discussions.
There are none. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- [1] Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kid. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)