User:Nixeagle/WikiDiscussion Manager/Forum/Archive 1

Features
About "more to come"... It would probably be a good idea to finish this project to a known state, perhaps even the second release version, before allowing features to invite "creep" into the code. I suggest after reaching a stable second release version that you will be able to build a library of code that was kept and which will be common among various projects. Modularity as a theme from the ground up reflects on the entire project.
 * Done —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Research Aid
Besides a topic search to Alexa and Google, a scan of the actual article for references might be a good idea as well. The references could be split into sections for internal and external. Also, a scan for categories in the article could also have a small section. Is there a tab for showing the actual article under review?
 * Strong agree What we need for AfD isn't easier voting, but easier checking. Here's my thoughts on useful improvements

Hopefully with all the above, we will have a very effective means to encourage people to check an article's subject before voting, and hence significantly improve the AfD process. LinaMishima 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Automatic AfD check - automatically check that the author has been notified, and the link in the article is correct. These are often not done, which is horribly bad form in my opinion. This should be done automatically on selecting to view an AfD.
 * Link for google search on the subject - allow the search query to be changed to allow it to be narrowed.
 * Articles linking to this one link - often reveals a lot about an article
 * SwetsWise and other scientific journal listings search on subject - vital for science articles
 * Will probably need means for users to authenticate via Athens
 * For articles about websites:
 * Google links search - if a website is heavily linked to, it's probably important
 * Alexa search - has to be with a warning that any figure about 100,000 is not accurate
 * List of all URLs within the article - and means to check them out
 * List of all books referenced - and means to check them out on multiple systems - not just Amazon!
 * List of all scientific papers referenced and means to look them up
 * Notify author and editors option - for automatically adding "article flagged for AfD" on user talk pages, as this is often forgotten.

Layout
I like the layout itself as displayed. It would be helpful to know what language this is written in and where the documentation for the program is. If the program is available for download/testing, that would be helpful, too. The platform that this runs under appear to be Win32 only. For maximum versatility among various different types of cultures you might want to consider allowing the user more options. If there isn't already a user-option tab, you might want to add one that opens its own window. Just for a quick example there may be users that prefer blue for keep and pink for delete, etc.

Article
The exclamation points appear to me as "selling" the program. A well written program will sell itself. :) You might want to consider starting a log of development activity. As versions progress over time, it is helpful as a reference since various people will have various different problems. You might want to implement some version control to aid in that effort if you haven't done so already.

I wish I'd had a better view than only the screenshot to work with, Eagle. Hope these comments are helpful. Keep up the good work. Ste4k 07:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please kill this dead
We really do not need anything that makes "voting" any easier. It's a good thing if people are "forced" to look over lots of deletion discussions. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 08:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently there are usually about 170-200 AfD's per day. I believe this tool will help the process out some, if not alot. Its already showed me an AfD that had been deleted, which wasnt closed. In which case, I, as a non admin, closed it. But thanks for your concerns. :) SynergeticMaggot 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read about what else the tool does. It is not to speedup voting as to make it easier to verify facts ect. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that one of the features you boast is being able to produce a vote tally; I'm not at all sure why you think the tally is ever relevant to an AfD. Also, making it easier for people to count the number of search engine hits without having to analyse the content and quality of results, and (especially) making it easier to unfairly prejudice one's self against otherwise sensible comments from relatively new users (or anons, like myself at the current time &mdash; though it shouldn't be too difficult to work out my account name), strike me as, well, misfeatures.  I appreciate your good intentions in creating this hideous monstrosity, but please, kill it.  150.101.72.113 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple numbers should never be used as a sole criteria for making any sort of decision. However in many cases they serve as a launching point. If an article name gets a million Google hits, there's quite possibly something to that name. If it gets zero, it certainly deserves closer scrutiny. Please consider using the program before criticizing it - all this program does is bring information together - you still need to look at the vote page, you still need to look at the text of the article itself, and you still need to look at the actual search engine results (for which, I might add, the program has its own special tab). This tool provides access to all the same things you would look at when participating at an AfD "manually", it merely provides features that make these repetitive tasks easier and faster. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that not only does it emphasise the voting nature of deletion discussions, it encourages people to contribute to more discussions. This is not a good thing as the more widely a person's attention is spread, the less deply it can be focused. If you're contributing to fifty discussions a day, what are the chances that you'll take the time to carefully read every argument before you comment? how closely are you going to follow the discussions after you comment to make sure that your reasoning hasn't been refuted, or that someone has asked you a question? No no no, sweet mother of corn on the cob, please don't. - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Encouraging editors to participate in discussions is fine. Agree that inviting numerous random editors to give an opinion in a large number of deletion discussions is less than helpful for the reasons stated by brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} . IMO, the creator and other editors familiar with the article should be notified on their talk page if they are not actively editing the article at that time. A note on a WikiProject's talk page might be appropriate for some discussions. Use of tools that generate superficial assessment should be discouraged.  FloNight   talk  11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Kind of useless
I thought I'd check this out before deciding on it, and since it constantly logs me out every 30 seconds and complains I'm editing from my IP its pretty much useless.--Crossmr 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)