Wikipedia talk:Archived articles for deletion discussions/Archive 1

Archive of "when should we use seperate /deletion pages, as opposed to headers, and should they be further edited?"

''If you find any other pages which contained detailed debates on whether or not to delete an article, please link them here. If a page is to be deleted and it was debated on the talk page, move the debate to a separate page called Talk:NAME OF ARTICLE/deletion and store that delete debate record here to preserve a record of past wiki debates. Having copies may prove useful if and when at some stage in the future a history of wikipedia is compiled and historians need to know how wikipedia reached decisions and for what reason.''


 * I strongly disagree with always moving debates to a seperate deletion page. Certainly in some cases it can prove useful. However, in many cases it's just needless complexity - especially if the talk page contains nothing except the deletion discussion. Martin 09:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not true. If the debate is kept on the talk page, and someone comes along to delete a page that has received sufficient support for deletion, the talk page, and with it the record of the debate, is lost. We have lost countless debates this way. Always creating a separate /delete page, accompanied by the rule when deleting a page and its talk page, never delete its accompanying /delete page, but attach it to the Archived delete debates guarantees that records of debates survive.


 * A better rule would be "if the Talk page contains some interesting point of policy, don't delete it", which achieves the same thing.

We can ask people to move the delete debate from a talk page before deleting,


 * We could, but that'd be pointless. Better to just ask people to not delete the Talk page if it contains something of interest. In any case, we don't need to save every single delete debate.

but (a) a lot of people won't remember


 * I doubt that there's any difference in forgetfulness between the various options.

(b) on talk pages, delete debates can get broken up with side issues of the sort normally discussed on talk pages, eg, discussions of article paragraphs, general comments.


 * Even if you put a delete debate on talk/deletion, it will get broken up with side issues. In any case, side issues are highly relevant - debate on changing a title may mean that people are happy to accept a page move rather than deletion. Debate on adding a paragraph may mean that an article previously viewed as deletable is perfectly keepable. And so forth.

So even if one tried to salvage a debate from a talk page, it may well involve a lot of work extracting the debate bits of the page from the non-debates bit.


 * No more work than on a talk/deletion page: the list of hets talk/deletion page has a bunch of content not related to deletion. And the list of hets normal talk page had some content related to deletion (which is now deleted, unsurprisingly). If you're aiming to preserve all and only the content related to deletion, it's actually more work.

Always using a /delete page for delete debates alone makes the preserving of archives clean, quick and easy and avoids unnecessary complexity, time-consuming editing and confusion what to keep and what to delete, what was part of the delete debate and what wasn't. It is easier to say 'in situation x, create page/y' than to say, 'in situation x, create page /y or discuss matters on talk:x, remembering if deleting x to go through talk:x and move relevant bits to archived page z.' FearÉIREANN 23:36, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd say that it's simple - if the Talk page contains something interesting (or something that someone thinks interesting), then keep it. Eg, if someone asks for the talk page to be preserved. You'll need to read the talk page to find this out - but you ought to read stuff prior to deleting it anyway. Martin 08:31, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Problems with /deletion pages

 * 1) people with the article on their watchlist won't automatically have the /deletion page on their watchlist. This group of people is the most important group of people that we have to consult.
 * 2) similarly, people with the deletion page on their watchlist won't automatically have the article on their watchlist. People discussing deletion really need to keep themselves informed about the article.
 * 3) breaks "view talk page" and "view article"
 * 4) The split between content discussion and deletion discussion means that people will be less aware of recent content improvements to the page, which would normally affect their opinion on deletion, reducing the quality of discussion and decision.
 * 5) You have to figure out whether to link to talk:Engelsism or talk:Engelsism/Deletion - this hinders linking, compared to just having talk on talk:

Martin 08:31, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let me make one thing clear: there are situations when /delete pages are worthwhile - see talk:AKFD/existence, for example, which I created myself. Here's what Jtdirl said on my talk page, some time earlier.:


 * Hi Martin, when the VfD pages was hitting a ludicrous size and needed a severe trimming, I look a detailed look to find out what the problem was. The problem was articles were remaining on the page too long, sometimes for weeks, one I remember was there for months. I added in date headings so that it would be clear when an article was put on and so when the article should be removed, either deleted or kept. But one type of VfD still caused a major problem; those said said discussion moved to talk page. And when the talk page was reviewed it wasn't hard to understand why. People would begin talking about deletion, then someone else would add in something about something else, then another issue was raised and before you knew it the entire discussion of deletion was swamped with unrelated issues. The whole thing would end up in limbo, with people drifting away and no-one quite sure what the final decision was or if a final one had been taken. From from helping the VfD page by removing discussion, it made it worse by cluttering it up with articles that no-one removed because no one was sure what the final decision was.


 * Tonight's solution, create a special debate page, was something I proposed months ago. Ordinary debates on the article could go on as before on the talk page, but the 'keep or delete' debate could be kept focused in one place with a specific time span for a decision stated.


 * I would urge you to use that solution rather than simply transfer the debate over to the talk page.


 * Sorry if I misjudged your motives in thinking that you were trying to put the article into limbo to avoid deletion. I have seen people do that and jumped to conclusions. But I do think the talk page transfer is the worst of all worlds. In almost every page transfer I have seen, the delete debate has got sidetracked and drowned in other issues by being put onto talk pages, leaving the page stuck far too long on the VfD page, as no-one knows what to do with the article. Using a special page keeps the debate focused and time-limited and makes it much easier to reach a definitive conclusion on whether to keep or axe. lol FearÉIREANN 22:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl is essentially raising two problems with deletion discussions in general:


 * 1) Discussion of deletion "swamped" by "unrelated" issues - therefore have a seperate /deletion page
 * 2) No clear time-limit for making a decision - therefore, add dates and headings: "decision to be made by T".

Now, the second point is certainly a good general point in all these discussions. But the first is only really relevant where there is a significant amount of discussion of unrelated issues. In the case of Engelsism, there wasn't any - so where's the advantage of having it on a /deletion page? I've raised a number of problems with the seperation, and I think they're likely to result in a lower quality of decision-making. The benefits need to be weighed against the costs, rather than a hard edict that all such pages should be at /deletion. Often good use of sections and headers will serve better than a seperate page. Martin 22:51, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Engelsism page is a classic example of the complexity of combining both talk page and delete page. Right this minute, nobody wants to talk about the articles, merely the deletion of them. But you or I have no way of knowing if as I write this some user wants to make a comment about the articles that isn't related to deletion but is about something in the article. Where does he or she go right now? My solution is to leave a normal talk page there for anyone who wants it. And have a separate delete page attached to it for the deletion page. Maybe not a single solitary soul will want to add anything to the normal talk page. But you and I don't know that. I think it is much fairer to leave open the option rather than creating a mismash. And as to the complexity of separating a delete debate on a talk page from the general delate, you and i both have gone through texts and edited them to catalogue them. But most people don't. I tried to do it on one page recently and after an hour trying to separate delete and non-delete stuff gave up in frustration. The text had become so intertwined as to make it the equivalent of separating Siamese twins. But keeping all the talk page is against wiki policy, which is to delete the talk page along with the main article. Keeping the deletion debate separate from the main talk page makes it clear cleanly what stays and what goes, should the vote be for deletion. Post vote Siamese twins-style editing is time consuming and simply won't get done in I suspect in many cases, leading to the loss of the debate and the talk page together. I think that is something we really should avoid. lol FearÉIREANN 01:17, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BTW I reinstated the /delete page tag not to annoy you but just because other users created and used it and I think we should respect their decision to do so. FearÉIREANN 01:17, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * keeping all the talk page is against wiki policy

I don't think it is. A matter for wikipedia talk:deletion policy, but the page says "Simply deleting a page does not automatically delete its talk page or any subpages. Please delete these pages first, and then the main page" - which is a question about procedure and order of deletion, not an edict that talk pages must always be deleted - at least as far as I'm concerned.

I'm unclear why you can't just have something like the following:

Deletion discussion
''This discussion started on 14th May 2003. A decision one way or the other should be made by 21st May 2003. Etc.''

Non-deletion discussion
Please add comments not directly related to deletion here.

That seems the best of both worlds to me - seperate, but adjacent. What do you think? Martin 09:02, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like the idea, but again the problem will be things will not always remain separate. For example, here someone could have the following here:

I this this article could be deleted. But why is paragraph two written in the present tense it should be written as the past. [User a]


 * I disagree. It should be written as present. [User B.]


 * No. History is written professionally in the past. Present is tabloid style. [User C]


 * But encyclopædias on the internet don't have to conform to those standards. etc etc.

In other words, Martin, on the same page people won't always separate the deletion comments from other comments. That happens all over the place. Separate pages for talk and debate keeps everything cleanly separate. I would love if people would keep comments separate, but I have been around wiki long enough to realise that clearly separating things on talk pages is all too rare. FearÉIREANN 18:52, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but why could the above exchange not take place on a /deletion page? Won't the same problem occur? Martin 19:47, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is easier to avoid. It is early days yet on the /delete format, but so far people have only debated deletions on delete pages. Were someone to add in non-deletion discussion, it could be relatively easy to judge it is off-topic in terms of the /delete page, to remind the user of the fact and be cut and pasted into the talk page, with a link saying ''Non delete discussion by this contributor moved to Talk:x page. . That would be easier and cleaner that having to say the rest of this user's comment are under the wrong heading and have been moved to 'x' heading below.'' I'm sure as a veteran of wiki talk pages you have seen the difficulty that sometimes arise when someone mentions 'a', another user mentions 'b', another 'c' and before you know it, five paragraphs later people are discussing something completely different to what was originally at the start of the conversation. Looking back on old delete debates on talk pages, I was often stuck about how we got so involved in a wide ranging discussion on anything and everything that the delete debate got lost, with people at the end confused over whether we had decided to delete or not to delete, whether we were rewriting the page as an alternative to the deletion, when the starting point and crucially the finishing point of the debate. In the end the whole issue fizzled out, until as invariably happened someone some weeks later put the page back on VfD page saying 'no decision was taken. Please take one' and the meandering debate would begin again. The /delete format allows for specificality. You can say - page created on date x, debate will finish and decision to be taken on date x+7. Only three things go on this page. Delete: Yes? No? and Why? Everything else goes on talk.

As I have said, I see nothing wrong with doing both on the one page in theory, but in practice in 10 months experience I have very very rarely seen a delete debate on a general talk page has has remained tightly focused and produced a clear, efficient decision in seven days. /Delete pages allow to say 'ok, people, lets focus on the deletion issues for 7 days and reach a clear conclusion'. lol FearÉIREANN 23:57, 17 Sep 2003 (UT

I moved this to the talk page as this was not an archived delete debate and very little debate over the deletion of dictionary entries ever happened there. Angela

General discussion on deleting dictionary entries

See also a general discussion on deleting dictionary entries at Wikipedia talk:Things to be moved to Wiktionary

(added by Patrick)

I object to the new boilerplate text. People should feel free to carry on discussing issues. The "historical record" can be made available through the page history. In particular, people should generally aim to continue past debate and seek new consensus after later reflection, rather than just relisting on VfD every six months. Martin 23:29, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I also object to it, if only because we now have yet another Wikipedia: namespace page where the explanatory waffle is so long you have to scroll down before you even start seeing the content (Protected_page is another recent victim to wafflitis :) ) Pete 23:34, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Bah - that's what TOCs are for... :) Martin 23:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Goodness I'd forgotten about them since I turned them off (hurrah for preferences!). It must be almost like death to have to wade through that too! :). Pete 23:47, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The archive pages are only records of 1 debate on one 1 issue- to delete or not to delete, with a decision to be taken by a set date and the page to become an archive afterwards, so that a perfect record exists of the debate unclouded by later contributions that occured after the decision was taken and so had no influence on the decision but which could mislead archivists and researchers wanting to learn why decision 'x' was taken in such and such a case. The articles themselves all have talk pages. The boilerplate text is simply to explain that the archive page is simply a record up to the point of deletion and non-deletion and nothing else. FearÉIREANN 23:59, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, the "perfect record" exists in the page history. We're not going to mislead anyone by allowing people to carry on editing a page that discusses deletion, any more than by allowing people to carry on editing any other page. A blanket statement that "thou shalt not edit this page" will just cause problems if people later want to challenge or rethink that decision. Just like the problems that occurred on talk:list of heterosexuals when you and Lir got into a scrap.


 * You state thinsg about what you believe archive pages are - you need to appreciate that I fundamentally disagree with those beliefs. I've told you why, at length, above, and you still don't seem to have taken it in, or accepted that my ideas can possibly be valid. Come now, you have your pristine, untouched, unchangable page - it's in the page history, and nobody, anywhere, ever, can edit it. Isn't that enough? Why does the perfect record have to be the current version? WHY?? Martin 00:45, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Martin, I have the highest respect for you (you are one of the most honest people on wikipedia) but clearly you are not a historian or archivist. Preserving a clean archive is one of the golden rules on archival work. Tracing back to at which point the debate ended is easy enough now, but it won't be in ten years time when pages may have thousands of edits. You cannot expect someone writing the history of editing policy on wikipedia to wade back through hundreds of thousands of pages of edits going back a decade to piece together the debate, let alone expect them to have to do that scale of work for every one of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of deletions they may need to examine. That is simply unworkable. Stop thinking about what suits us now Martin. These pages are not about now they are about providing an archive in the future, so that if someone in 2008 wants to study the debate on whether to delete Minnie Mouse was a lesbian that took place between 7th August and 14th August 2004, they can do so by simply opening the pristine archive of the debate, rather than spent time wading through four years of edits to find the relevant bit. This way, they can open up one page, know 14 people expressed an opinion, 'a' said such and such, 'b' said that, 'c' said 'a' was a bigot, Martin said "lets all be friends!" :-) and the decision not to delete was taken on the 14th based on that debate.

These archive pages are intended to make it easy, effective and straight-forward for historians, students or users of wikipedia in one, five, ten or twenty years to find out 'so why did they decide that?' and doing that through edit histories when you are not talking about going back through the last 50 edits in the last week, but the last 4317 in 8 years, is simply unworkable. FearÉIREANN 01:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that we have an "archived delete debate" page for Jtdirl and the researchers of the future, and a "delete debate" page for Martin and those who want to carry on the arguments? This clearly can't be done with one page as you both have such differing views on the purpose of the delete page. I think it would be best if the page history stayed at the "archived delete debate" page, and a copy was made to the to-be-continued delete debate page. Or maybe someone should just start the "continued" page when they want to continue it, rather than assuming that all of these are to be continued and making unnecessary duplicates. Angela 13:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the format at talk:Santorum would be a better compromise - allow continued discussion, but link to the specific versions in the history prior to the decision to keep or to delete. Martin 15:55, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I still think separate /delete pages are more useful than using the talk page as this keeps deletion discussions on deletion separate from other talk, but I think it is ok for later deletion discussions to occur on that same /delete page rather than having to keep it the same as it was when the original deletion decision was made. Angela. 00:24, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have added Talk:M.R.M. Parrott to the list of archived deletion debates. But not Talk:M.R.M. Parrott/Delete, because there was never such a page. :) All of the deletion debate is on that page, and I don't really see the purpose of moving it. I also don't see the purpose of telling people not to edit it. Telling people not to edit things just seems very un-wiki, and I don't see what benefits it would bring. If the deletion debate starts up again, adding comments to the page might very well be useful. Of course, people might be naughty and change the content of the debate later on, but if they're being naughty then telling them not to wouldn't help. Any distortion of the debate can be reverted just like any other bad edit, so the debate will still be readable in any number of years' time... -- Oliver P. 08:45, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to agree there's not much point telling people not to edit. I'll change the boilerplates if there are no objections. I guess /talk instead of /delete is ok for the MRM Parrott page because those same issues would reoccur if the page were ever recreated, but for pages where it is possible the page could survive in future, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the talk page of the old article to remain with the new article, so in those cases, I think /delete should definitely be used. Angela. 10:43, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that you come to mention it... That's not necessarily true, is it? Given that most people's problems were with (a) the page having been written by the man himself, and (b) lack of verifiability, if someone completely unconnected with the man were to find some material on him and write their own article based on that material, the issues would be completely different, wouldn't they? I mean, not that anyone would do such a thing... -- Oliver P. 11:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe. In that case maybe it's easier to always use /delete subpages. It saves having to make a judgement about whether the page should ever exist. Angela. 20:50, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

One advantage of normal talk over /delete is that if I go to create some page (I dunno, list of heterosexuals: I'm sure I'm not the only one to have had that idea) and I see a whopping great big talk page, it might just make me think twice about creating it... or at least take extra care to solve the problems with the prior version. Does this happen enough to make that a significant advantage? Perhaps not. Martin 23:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's more likely someone will recreate a page that should exist than one that shouldn't. Angela. 00:10, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Entry formats
Now that we are using a single page for the transclusion of each day's deletion nominations, I propose that we use this page to record the links to the log pages and stop trying to record every deletion debate. It cuts several steps off the process. It also means that we are recording the deletion discussion by date of nomination rather than by the date that some admin finally gets around to carrying out the deletion. Rossami (talk) 07:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You changed Deletion process to say that on the 5th. While I don't disagree with it, why are you putting it forward as a proposal? -- Cyrius|&#9998; 17:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rossami. Now that (s)he's restored all the closed log pages, I removed the long list of vote pages from here.  I'm pretty sure all of those vote pages are linked from the closed log pages.  dbenbenn | talk 23:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)