Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 16

Huh?
What happened to the pages from June 26 and 27? They don't seem to have been deleted or moved to /Old. Did they get lost in the shuffle? Isomorphic 01:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, pretty sure what happened is that i started the transition work late, then lost my paste buffer with 26 & 27 in it (doing too many tasks concurrently), and let the gap between deletion and adding to /Old get longer than you'd expect, as i checked history & retrieved a second copy before completing the paste. Pretty sure it's squared away now. --Jerzy(t) 07:15, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the two days were missing from
 * 01:14, 2004 Aug 2 Jerzy (3-section edit for trns'n to Au 2nd, incl mov'g both 26 & 27 to /Old; + some instances of &lt;!-- You are about to edit the main VfD page.)
 * to
 * 01:39, 2004 Aug 2 Jerzy (Metal Hammer forum &#8212; Add to this discussion - + 26th & 27th blw it)
 * and 25 min is a long time for that to last. Sorry!
 * -Jerzy(t) 07:25, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just wanted to make sure they didn't get lost. Isomorphic 00:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup on VfD articles: bad form?
When an article is being voted on, there are often a number of "keep and clean" votes for poorly-written but potentially acceptable articles. Is it considered bad form for me to dive in and clean up the article, even while the page is still receiving votes on VfD? I don't want to mess up the voting process. And yes, I do realize that there's a chance that any cleanup I do will be for naught if the article gets deleted. But when I see an interesting article that looks like it might survive the VfD, I don't mind jumping in and cleaning it up. Kosher? --Benc 10:30, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Other views may differ, but I'd call fixing up an article that otherwise might end up in the bit-bucket very good form indeed. I've rescued a few VfD-proposed articles this way and have generally had a very positive response. - TB 12:32, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Man, it's so depressing the vfd has turned it such a deletefest that you even have to ask. Please clean up an article if you can, and leave a note "Article cleaned up; consider disregarding previous votes" on the deletion page. Admins will do the right thing in due course. Pcb21| Pete 13:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Cleaning a VfD article is always a good thing unless it is the title that is being discussed. No one will ever give you a hard time for trying to make an article better. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:49, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's traumatic that this even comes up. I am constantly disapointed that people list poorly written articels on vfd rather than fixing them. Mark Richards 17:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Mark and I are in complete agreement. Why would you even need to ask?  The point of this page isn't to delete bad articles, it's to get rid of things that will never become good articles.  If you can make the article worth keeping, then it shouldn't qualify for deletion anyway, because it's salvageable.  You should take pride in your accomplishment when you save an article from deletion by improving it.  I've done it a couple times and found it quite satisfying. Isomorphic 01:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree. VfD has been so effective at cleaning up articles in the past that we have had people list articles that they really wanted improved, not deleted. Hopefully cleanup has removed the need to do this, and I don't want to encourage it.


 * The very best possible result from a listing is an article that is worth keeping. And an even better result is for it not to be listed at all, because the person who considered listing it fixed it instead!


 * On the other hand, often I see people put more work into the debate than it would have taken to fix the article. I guess they have their reasons, but I find that appalling. Andrewa 00:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Votes for deletion (fixed)
The top of the page says "See also Category:Votes for deletion". That's a red link. What's supposed to be there? RickK 20:21, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fixed it, was supposed to be Category:Pages on votes for deletion &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  02:39, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects
VfD is clogged up with lots of articles that everyone agrees should be redirects to other articles.

These entries don't need to be here. Anyone can turn, for example, Independentism into a redirect to Separatism, and anyone can move it back if they disagree. Why should such entries waste space on VfD?

If there is controversy, it can be cleared up on the appropriate talk page. Only if this cannot be resolved should the discussion be put before the whole community.

I say that we should have a clearly-expressed policy on this, in order to reduce the strain on VfD. &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 19:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sometimes controversies like this need to be aired in a larger forum to get a balanced discussion going. I don't know if Vfd is the right forum for that, but it certainly has the right audience. --ssd 12:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If an admin set up a page called Votes for Redirection, I would gladly participate. In fact, I think it would be helpful as some wikipedians could figure out exactly where the article should be redirected to and we could have a consensus. Skyler 18:07, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * That doesn't need an admin to do it. Anyone can set up such a page, and anyone can action the consensus. But I preach caution. For this to work it needs more dedicated people to participate than just one or two.
 * I noticed the following comment in a vote recently: Merge and redirect. Username (the particular username doesn't matter here) beat me to making this listing. That is inconsistent IMO. If you want it redirected, be bold and do it. Don't list it on VfD. If the change is challenged or reverted, discuss this on the article or user talk pages, not on VfD. Andrewa 00:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Large Votes
Some of the votes are getting huge, cluttered with alot of debate and campaigning for an article and such. Obviously this isn't a problem with most votes, but for some it is a problem. I cleaned up one page and seperated the votes from the debates, that would be the vote on Genital Integrity. What does everyone think of that for some of the larger votes? It makes it easyer on mods, everyone can see plainly how their vote is going to be interpreted, and there can still be debate on the subject. --Starx 21:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Debate about an article's validity belongs in that article's Talk page. on VFD, I'd like to see an explicit notice to the effect that the /PAGENAME only contain simple votes, one line of comment per user only. Could be easy to also modify Template:Vfd to route discussion to an article Talk page or sub-page. -- Netoholic 05:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if a "one line per user" rule could be made to work. Are users suppose allow comments they disagree with slide and not add a rebuttal, or are they suppose to delete their previous comment when they add a rebuttal? I can see restricting the "discussion" to votes only, but not one comment line per user.  Not that I disagree, just that I'd be surprised if you could make that work. --ssd 13:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Time Limit Policy on relisted VfD's ?
I'm interested to know if there is a generally accepted policy concerning repeated vfd listings? I am asking with reference to an article that has been listed 3 times in less than 7 months (the 2 most recent occasions being "revenge" listings by crank editors).--Gene_poole
 * This makes the third time that I've voted to keep an article which I normally would have (or did in the past) voted to delete. All three times the reason that I voted to keep was for the sole reason that the article had recently survived VfD.  IMO, re-listing an article soon after it survives VfD shows a disregard for community consensus.  This is an honor system here, and we have to abide by consensus agreements, even when the decision is other than what we individually think is best for the Wikipedia.  I've never seen an official time limit mentioned anywhere, but I use six months as my personal standard.  I will vote to keep any article that has survived VfD in the last six months, unless I think someone is trying to abuse this ("I know how to make sure my article never gets deleted -- use a sockpuppet to VfD my own article every couple of months").  SWAdair | Talk  10:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight - and for taking an honourable approach. In the current instance the situation is further complicated by the fact that the VfD was initiated by an editor who has been registered for less than a week, who has contributed to only 2 articles in that time (both of those being clear instances of self promotion), and who has been otherwise strangely, totally inactive. Perhaps some sort of policy on needs to be established to ensure people cannot initiate VfD's unless they have a minimum number of edits under their belt.--Gene_poole 11:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * To clarify matters here, "Gene Poole" is really George Cruickshank, "Emperor" of Atlantium, and the article which keeps getting listed on VfD is the article for his micronation. Samboy 17:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * So what? If it survives VfD, a community decision has been made which should be respected. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The following section was moved in from Wikipedia talk:Deletion process in order to consolidate the discussion.

Policy on Re-listing?
Is there a policy on relisting something that has survivied VfD. The ever charming Mike Church is seeking to relist Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Minions a couple of days after it survived VfD. This feels like an abuse, but I cannot find any policy on it. Thoughts? --Tagishsimon 13:55, 17 Aug 2004


 * Several people have called for such a policy. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever drafted one. The general pattern that I've read from the various VfD discussion threads is:
 * 2 months is about the minimum before a nomination will get summarily shouted down
 * 4-6 months seems to be an acceptable grace period for most people
 * Regardless of the time, the previous discussion should be disclosed so anyone can go back and read it. Failure to do so in the nomination will be interpreted as an attempt to be sneaky.
 * I'd like to add my own caveat that anything should be eligible for relisting if there is new evidence that was not available during the earlier discussion but I can't say I've ever seen that situation come up. It's usually just new opinions. Rossami 22:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleting user subpages
Copied from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:IndigoGenius/Jus cerebri electronici:

''No vote: although this is a violation of policy, I feel that user pages should be handled by the arbitration committee, not VfD. -Sean Curtin 04:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)''

Agree. Or at least by a slightly different system, a separate page called UfD perhaps, but there are several hurdles to setting one up. There's a slightly different procedure required, as the user should always be approached first and asked to correct the problem. If they don't, then that means there is a dispute, so perhaps mediation or arbitration are the next step.

But whatever the next step, it should not be VfD. The three user pages recently listed have very much lowered the tone of cooperation and focus on the goal that generally makes the whole VfD system workable, and which is essential if the current system is to keep working as Wikipedia grows.

These discussions should take place somewhere else. There is no hope of making them less traumatic or more focussed, they will stay long, prone to personal attacks and bad language, and a magnet for those wanting to radically change or even destroy Wikipedia.

This can all be dealt with, we have no choice! But the skill set and mindset required are significantly different to that required for normal VfD operation. VfD mostly calls for detailed hard work unearthing obscure facts. User subpages call for diplomacy, a thick skin, a generous nature and an exceptional dedication to the project goals. Andrewa 20:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer naming such a page Disupted user pages rather than User pages for deletion. The latter implies a binary and heavy-handed choice - imagine the vitriol if Requests for arbitration were instead called Requests for banning!  -Sean Curtin 00:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better as part of RfC rather than creating a new page and procedure for this? Angela. 01:16, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * It isn't very clear on exactly how to handle the removal of user subpages. There needs to be a policy stating where and how requests for removal should be handled. (There probably already is such a policy that I'm simply ignorant of, but if it exists and it does allow for VfDing user pages, then it can't be a very stringent or effective policy.)-Sean Curtin 05:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think RfC is an excellent suggestion. I also agree with Sean's comment about the page name, but it's far better if we don't need to create a new page at all. A new page needs a crew of people to support it. Angela's solution might only require some clarification of the deletion policy. I don't think it has ever been really clear whether or not user subpages qualified for VfD. We have done it, I've even nominated a few myself, but that's more because of what the policy doesn't say. Andrewa 07:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two other user subpages listed recently were a list of password matches and another list of alleged sock puppets. Both debates were messy, and neither page seems to have been discussed with the owner before listing. One advantage of the RfC solution is that there's already a procedure in place requiring two people to have attempted to contact the user before listing, and these two are required to provide details of their attempts.

To implement this, we would need two things: Comments? If there are none I'll put a policy proposal together from what we have. Andrewa 01:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) We'd need to include a section for user subpages in RfC, with a clear procedure to be followed if the consensus was to delete.
 * 2) We'd need to put a note into the deletion policy and a couple of other places to say that this is how user subpages are to be proposed for deletion.


 * Sounds good to me. -Sean Curtin 01:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, too. &mdash;Stormie 03:29, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Johnleemk | Talk 06:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Zocky 12:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. Sounds better than using VfD. As an aside - I've just remembered why I don't frequent this page. zoney &#09608; &#09608; &#09608;  talk 13:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposed policy is now at deletion of user subpages. Further discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:deletion of user subpages. Andrewa 21:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I've done all I need to before the vote. Have a look at it, you've another week to edit and improve it. Andrewa 18:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote is now open
See Wikipedia talk:deletion of user subpages, and please leave this subheading... I've used it as an alternative to starting a new section on this already overlong page. It's important that this gets noticed. Andrewa 18:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Merge and delete"
There used to be a guideline somewhere (or maybe there still is, but I can't find it) that noted 'merge and delete' isn't a valid option (because of GFDL attribution issues). Is it worth noting this in the deletion policy, or page header, or somewhere? It seems a few people aren't aware of this (and are using this option during voting). &mdash; Kate | Talk 02:43, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)


 * It's still in the deletion policy, see Deletion_policy, last sentence. This is a perenial problem, each new bunch of editors who get involved in VfD (and that's great) seem to overlook this paragraph completely. Any ideas how we might make it more prominent? It is important. Andrewa 03:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of it until now - and I would suggest that the best way to deal with it is probably just to point it out to people who vote "merge and delete", a quick note on their talk page or a follow-up comment on the VFD page should do the trick. &mdash;Stormie 03:31, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * The easy way out would be for the sysop handling the deletion process to copy the page history into the talk page as appropriate. That's what we do for transwikis. It's yet another burden, though, and I wouldn't like to be the sysop doing this. VfD is already bogged down enough in red tape as it is. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The policy states:
 * "Note that merge into article and delete is not a valid option (except for public domain text) unless the information on authorship of the content is somehow preserved."


 * Some articles come onto VfD after considerable work has been done on them, including quite possibly the merging of some of their content into other articles. Does anyone ever check this? How can anyone check it, other than looking for matches of individual phrases? How can anyone be sure that some of the content has not been copied into another article with some rephrasing before the article even hit the RfD list, or even during its time on the RfD list? If indeed it is legally necessary that authorship history be preserved for any marterial that might have been copied into another article, this would suggest that no article should ever be deleted for any reason, whether through RfD or quick delete unless its page history is preserved. By this logic perservation of information on authorship should always be done, whether the article is deleted from quick delete or RfD or in some other fashion. Preservation of this material should be standard procedure and there should be no special rule against merge and delete for RfD. Also, are there rules somewhere that anyone merging material from one should say in some special way where the material comes from. Duplicate_articles doesn't suggest anything, not even that the edit summary must specify that added material is a merge and state from where it is merged. Accordingly authorship material of additions taken from another article often will be lost. And even if all cases of merged material were clearly mentioned, the article from which material is taken might later be moved and the resultant deleted in which case finding the history would be very difficult.


 * Or am I missing something?


 * But Merge and Redirect is usually a better opption in any case.


 * Jallan 17:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what our policy pages say (they can get quite crusty), but if I have to do some surgery that could potentially result in lost history I always note on the relevant talk page how to recover history - even cutting and pasting the history to the talk page if necessary. THis is all independent of VfD and other editors should do the same. It is sloppy not to. Pcb21| Pete 21:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * All very nice. But if Wikipedia policy pages say nothing about this (or speaks of it in a section of which most people know nothing) then most people probably aren't doing it. There's no mention at [Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles] for example. I don't see any information at all appearing on talk pages of either article on the cases I've checked where articles have been removed from this list as being merged.


 * Perhaps it doesn't matter if the article that has been made a redirect is kept. But will such a redirect always be kept? What if is moved so that it now points to a new article containing its old edit history, and then that article is also moved? What happens if one of those articles is deleted? Edit histories to the articles I checked mention that merging from the other article. But in an article undergoing a major cleanup, in which material from several other articles are included, such information might not appear. Also it is quite normal to duplicate more-or-less the same trivial bits of information in article after article without indicating source, whether from a book or journal or website or from another Wikipedia article.


 * If this is a genuine legal requirement, it should be documented fully as required including the exact steps that one should perform. And doing it properly should be enforced. If not, if it is only someone's unfounded legal paranoia, then there's no reason not to have "merge and delete" as an option on VfD.


 * Jallan 17:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are authors allowed to vote on VfD?
Comments
 * Yes, authors and other contributors are allowed to vote in VfD discussions. They have no less voice than any other member of the community.  (They also have no more voice.)  It is a point of courtesy to disclose if you have a vested interest in the article but that does not make you ineligible to vote. Rossami 13:27, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why authors should not be eligible to vote, but a full disclosure of their authorship would be nice. Maybe that should be official policy -- Ferkelparade &pi; 00:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki. There is in general no "author" to speak of. V V  01:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Any contributor to the article may vote. Declaration of any vested interests is always nice, but not necessary. &mdash;Morven 04:24, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course. Legitimate votes should not be readily discounted. -Sean Curtin 04:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. As an author they should definitely have one vote. Chris 73 Talk 06:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course the "author" (i.e. contributors) can vote, as long as their vote isn't anonymous. Most likely their comments will be far more useufl and interesting than their vote. Keep in mind that the vote isn't all that formal, anyway. All that happens is that sysop inspects the votes and determines rough consensus. It's not as if we were operating under parliamentary procedure and it matters whether there was a quorum present or what the precise tally was. It's not even all that rare to get a situation where the author agrees that the article should be deleted; would anyone suggest that such an opinion shouldn't count in weighing consensus? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, duh. ;-) Kim Bruning 11:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If authors can't vote, it would mean that someone can try to improve the article or can vote on it but can't do both. Someone who has tried to improve an article and still isn't satisfied also can't vote, unless possibly he or she first reverts all his or her changes. But then what if someone else reverts back? Is that person now an author? It becomes too complicated to try to prohibit any authors from voting. I'd rather have a rule that votes of users with less than 100 edits or who have been non-anonymous members for less than 30 days were not tallied. Jallan 02:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I figure that the original author of a VfD article is allowed their one vote, just like everyone else. You never know - they might actually agree with your PoV and support its deletion.  Even though they will understandably vote for themselves, candidates in an election are allowed votes as eligible constituents.  Note the distinction between the original author of an article and someone that has done copy-editing, or rewritten an article.  The debate should be as regards the original creator of a VfD'd article.  Remember, author &isin; people.  Chris, a.k.a. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 01:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * (Am I allowed to comment twice? Or do I need to create a sockpuppet for that?) It's not a voting process, it's a discussion process. The only reason for the votes is to assist the sysop who eventually tries to figure out what the consensus is. We can't start getting too cute about the voting rules. Are we going to ask people to show photo IDs to the sergeant-at-arms? In complicated cases it eventually comes down to a sysop's judgement no matter what. What would we do if (perish the thought) some, shall we say Bryn Mawr students decided to organize a bloc of fifty students to vote "keep" on every article relating to Bryn Mawr? We want authors to participate, at least I do, and letting them vote is a pleasant courtesy. And, yes, in the past month I've seen at least half a dozen examples where newbies who were treated respectfully and courteously and given good explanations did vote to delete their own articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Band Notability
Is there any sort of guideline or policy to determine whether a music band is suitably notable for inclusion? Joyous 00:11, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there's no clear policy on notability - basically, you'll have to use your own judgement. While it's obvious that major bands with several chart hits are notable and garage bands that have never played a single concert are not, there's lots of grey space in between. Bands that have signed with major labels and have released several albums might be non-notable because nobody cares about them, while on the other hand garage bands without any record releases might be important and well-known influences in punk or alternative circles and well worth their own article. If in doubt, place on VfD - we'll be certain to discuss the matter to death :P -- Ferkelparade &pi; 00:30, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Any band with several albums on a major label is certainly notable. Somebody cares about them, enough to buy the earlier albums or there wouldn't be any later ones.  (A band that persuades a major label to keep releasing one commercial disaster after another would be notable just for that reason!)  I do agree that there's a large gray area, though.  One factor sometimes mentioned in VfD discussions is whether a band is listed on http://www.allmusic.com/ (but the FAQ for that site mentions that some indie albums may be omitted simply because no one submitted the information). JamesMLane 16:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * A band may be notable for the fact that a notable person was in the band, yet not be notable in itself.Pedant


 * There is a proposed policy about notability at Importance. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why no "VfD Header section" heading
Someone wants a heading reading "VfD Header section" to be the first thing on VfD, explained as follows (in a comment following that heading):
 * Please leave this section header here. Yes, it is inconsistent with our normal format but this is the only way to enable section edits of the front section which we need for maintenance in order to minimize edit conflicts.

That's nonsense. Copy eVfD0 onto your personal bookmark page, if you'd like the convenience of going straight into the edit without the delay of loading the full page.

Or, if you don't want to bother getting to your bookmarks, use the link like this one
 * (edit)

that i've added to the section itself, now that someone's aware that newbies feel a need to participate in this form of maintenance.

Style is not a significant issue in this; the reasons for not having this page start with a heading are --Jerzy(t) 01:29, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
 * 1) The heading puts the exceptionally long ToC before the header, increasing the likelihood that users will jump into the page without reading the header.
 * 2) The only kinds of maintenance the section requires are
 * 3) changing the header and front matter, which being transcluded does not entail editing VfD,
 * 4) the daily adjustment to the index into the entries for each day, which is a short job once you have some practice at it, and (barring neglect) gets done soon after midnight UTC, which is a fairly low-traffic time for VfD (Tonite, the interval between the preceding and succeeding nominations was one hour, 47 minutes), and
 * 5) removals, even shorter, of dates that have been closed out on /Old, which occur on average less than once per day.
 * 6) The whole purpose of those roughly twice-a-day edits is to provide a means, handier than the extraordinarily long ToC, of getting to the point where you want to resume reading & voting on VfD. With the initial heading, the index would never even get noticed by many users, and it would be significantly less accessible to those who know about it.


 * Thank you. I never knew that kind of link would work.  (I wouldn't consider myself exactly a newbie anymore but there are many technical tricks I haven't learned.  Now I have one more.)  With that tip now recorded, we no longer need the header.  By the way, I'm sorry I screwed up the TOC.  I have them routinely turned off and never noticed.  Thanks.  Rossami 22:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * [Slinking in] This is my abject apology; i didn't know who i was calling a newbie, but 49% of me knew i would regret using the word. I'm too much of a smart-aleck, and if i'd known who it was, i wouldn't have said it. Hopefully i learned something from it, but R. deserves my full apology for being the victim of my irresponsibility. And maybe for my reckless in not thinking long enuf putting two and two together about who it was, in light of our previous discussion.) Thanks for the gentle correction. --Jerzy(t) 00:47, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Why a "VfD Header section" Heading is a Great Idea
What User:ScudLee trashed w/o so much as a summary is this:
 * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (edit)

Their replacement is in two parts, at start and end of the section: the heading, and

I don't want to go on a rant, but IMO if no one were finding the ToC useful, it would have been NoToc-ed long before now, and the consensus already reached in this section will quickly replace the heading-and-NoToc one. But that's just my opinion; i could be wrong. --Jerzy(t) 03:50, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)


 * The TOC hasn't been removed, it's been moved to where the is written (you're thinking of  ).  Your complaint, as I read it, was that use of the header was bad because it moved the TOC to the very top, this solves that problem, and, IMO, in a far tidier way than the previous method.  I had meant to leave a comment here explaining myself, but I hadn't realized how close to the hour it was, and had to leave almost straight after. By the time I returned, well, no-one had complained, so I assumed it had been accepted as a "good thing".  Perhaps not. - 11:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee  (talk)


 * I'm such a turkey, and so used to using, fow a while, on pages of the List of people by name tree, that i just read one as the other. [blush]  And i didn't look far enuf down the page to see that it had simply moved. Thanks for your great solution, Lee; i hope no one else is dumb enuf to complain about it. [grin] --Jerzy(t) 01:24, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

I notice the TOC got moved again this morning, such that ever-useful quick links to each day are now pointlessly below the TOC, thus seemingly defeating the entire point of having them there to begin with. They are incredibly useful for those that perhaps don't want to scroll through the entries of four days in the TOC to see today's listings. Just another non-refundable $0.02 there. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 00:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that annoyed me, too, as soon as i realized i had done it. See Lee's & my comments above.
 * BTW, not everyone realizes how ironic this is. I introduced the "ever-useful quick links to each day" some months ago, and probably have done the majority of maintaining of them day-to-day, always in the unfounded belief that they are used by others than myself.  It's nice to have evidence that there are two of us using them. [Smile] Thanks.
 * --Jerzy(t) 01:24, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

VfD Subpages - Don't link to the article being discussed
VfD has improved out of all recognition with the introduction of sub-pages, such as, to take one at random, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/North of the Border. There is IMO one shortcoming, which is that the system for setting up the sub-page does not ensure that there's a link from the subpage to the page being discussed. So, in the above example, there is no link to North of the Border. If I pick up on a VfD dicussion from Recent Changes, I get taken into the subpage and have to cludge around going up to the main VfD page, or cut & paste the title of the subpage, in order to see the page under discussion. All of which is the sort of faffing around I'd hope computers would take away from me :) --Tagishsimon 15:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If the sub-page has exactly the same name as the page discussed then it'll be automatically linked to from the page via the vfd template. In those cases you can use "what links here" to get back the page (e.g. Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/North of the Border).  Doesn't always work, though. - 16:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee  (talk)
 * I make a point, when either nominating or voting, to make the first line of the discussion page read (applying the above example)
 * Re: North of the Border
 * (and include a break tag
 * at the end of the line).
 * That effort is annoying for anyone who has to do it after the nomination (when the nominator could have done it so much more easily), but only one person has to do it per article, and Lee's trick (Brilliant! Thanks.) usually will ease it. And in reality, that extra effort is less than what it would take to get the nominators to do it, by complicating the instructions further; the complexity has already been complained about.  (And if enuf of us do it, most of the nominators will notice our links, wonder why their nomination doesn't have one, and eventually say "duh!, it's my job, isn't it?")
 * --Jerzy(t) 06:22, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
 * --Jerzy(t) 06:22, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)


 * I agree, this has been one of my nits with the new and improved system. Fuzheado | Talk 07:00, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Archiving finished votes
What is the policy regarding saving finished VfD vote subpages? Is it to move the contents to the relevant article's talk page, or is it to make a note on the talk page linking to the VfD subpage? I kind of prefer the latter&mdash;it's cleaner&mdash;but I see both happening. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * See Deletion process. Short answer: we are supposed to make a note on the talk page with a link to the VfD subpage.  See Wikipedia talk:Deletion process for why. Rossami 01:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. That's what I thought it was. Has anyone told User:SimonP? He seems to be the source of most of the moves-to-Talk.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion not showing up
I've just added Votes for deletion/Radiohead.com and only my original edit is showing up on VFD. Why is this? Theresa Knott 04:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm it's woking just fine now. Theresa Knott 05:06, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

from a discussion thread
Technical question to the experts: please, what are the objective rules and criteria to declare a wikipedian vote as invalid? What would become the validity of the general vote in the - of course purely theoretical - case that those criteria wouldn't not be respected? --Pgreenfinch 11:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * See Sock puppet Mintguy (T)

What if there is a "stockpuppetship suspicion" error? For example, when the decision to attribute it to some votes comes in a rush, without looking further, when the vote is going to its end, and that it changes the direction of the vote? Theorical question of course ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 12:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You can always list something on Votes_for_undeletion if you think it has been deleted wrongfully. However, since a "rough consensus" is all that's needed for deletion, it seems unlikely to me that one or two falsely accused sockpuppets are going to make enough of a difference.   &mdash;Triskaideka 15:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not a Sockpuppet, I just worked here in some articles before I registered this nickname. I am a real person. This situation is totally unfair and outrageous! I am considering resignation of my collaboration with English Wikipedia because, it seems to me, that some people here are very puerile and arrogant. Eurolusitanian 14:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * EuroL, i don't know what controversy you were in, but i urge you to consider that the situation could be unfair w/o being outrageous. If you haven't asked to have your former edits attributed to your registered name, no one can verify your previous work.  I hope you'll consider asking to have them transferred over, so that you don't get called a sockpuppet in similar future situations.  If you think your discounted vote might have made the difference, it might even be worthwhile to consider WP:VfU, tho here, as in the rest of the world (1) there are honest disagreements about what is adequate evidence to decide necessarily subjective matters, and (2) not every legitimate grievance has a remedy. --Jerzy(t) 01:51, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand your appeasing words and clear explanations. But it happens that the controversy was not just about one voter, as 5 of them were deliberatly eliminated, by stiking their names and putting "sockpuppet", without any explanation in the discussion page, and btw changing the direction of the vote. The thing has ben reverted now by an admin that tries to be objective, subject to further examination of the cases involved. But I understand that Eurolusitanian took it as an agression, as well a some other voters, and that it created some surprises and worries about fairness of the vote evaluation, at least it was my own reaction. I think this socksuppet thing should be used moderately, with a lot of care and full explanation. Imo, striking the name goes too far, a mention such as "possible stockpuppet, checking needed", would be amply enough. --Pgreenfinch 09:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IMO, striking the name out is unnecessary and counterproductive. Assuming the vote is properly formed, as in


 * Keep. He's my next door neighbour and very famous around here. Mysock1 23:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

then the best response is to add a comment, as in


 * Keep. He's my next door neighbour and very famous around here. Mysock1 23:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sockpuppet. Andrewa 23:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

where the Sockpuppet link leads to some evidence, most likely the user's contribution list. This gives information, not just an opinion, and gives the user the opportunity to reply and to explain or challenge the evidence. Sysops are going to do sockpuppet tests anyway when deciding whether there is consensus to delete. So if the vote looks like a sockpuppet but isn't flagged in any way, it will still be ignored in the decision, perhaps unfairly. Andrewa 23:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why do we call this "Votes for Deletion..."
...instead of, say, "Editorial Review?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ther's something quite wrong here
I added "Shelley Doles" and my comment on that ended up on /Shelley Doles. Don't know how... In the mean time I see a completely messed up VfD page with two headers section! And no sign of Shelley Doles although I can see it in "History". What's the problem? Have I done something wrong? IS the page too big? (I'm using IE6.0)--Nabla 17:22, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)


 * duncharris chopped it because it was suitable for Speedy deletion. Noisy 17:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And I wasn't delirious the page had a lot of duplicated content. /*relief*/--Nabla 22:09, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Anti-rule 0: Duplicate material excessively
Not only do there appear to be two sets of the contents of VFD, when I try and edit them, I get the footer section some 4-5 times. Attempting a fix, placing variation of "inuse" template on in the meantime. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 21:29, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That should do it - now to go and replace any votes which got killed.
 * This is now fixed, no thanks to whoever it was that felt RAHOWA needed to be on VfD twice, and Veronika Zemanova merits three simultaneous listings ;) The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 22:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a bug that seems to happen on large pages, like Cleanup. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to rename VfD "Editorial Review"
I shared the following thoughts in the mailing list and got several positive replies and so far no serious negatives, at least not to the portions suggesting the name changes and rewording.


 * I just put a strike across some parts of the proposal. It's the renaming and rephrasing of VfD I am most interested in discussing.

Rebranding VfD
Normally I'm an engineer-type who sneers at marketing and "image" and branding, and believes that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But I do have to wonder whether a VfD by some other name might have less sting.

In practice as I know it today, Wikipedia is not quite as radical a departure from traditional publishing practice was outsiders sometimes think. In particular, there is still a process by which articles are "accepted" or "rejected." The big difference is that everything takes place in the open and happens in the order ready-fire-aim.

Normally an article would go first to a closed group of editors who would accept or reject it, and nobody sees it until it gets accepted.

In Wikipedia, an article gets published first. In almost every case, an article gets glanced at very promptly within a very short period of time after it appears. Contributors don't realize it, but if it survives twenty- four hours without a notice having been placed on it, it has already been "accepted."

Borderline articles get subjected to a process. The process is called "Votes for Deletion." To someone unfamiliar with Wikiprocess, this sounds like "someone want to delete my article" or "someone is trying to delete my article" or "someone hates me" or "someone hates Dartmouth."

Normally, the nomination language reinforces this question, because, unlike the sometimes-phony practice of softening a statement by phrasing it as a question, phrasing it as a question, VfD nominators traditionally harden a question by phrasing it as a statement. E.g. (GROSSLY caricaturing an actual VfD debate for purposes of illustration) instead of saying "I've never heard of Lehman Brothers, what do you know about them?" a nominator is more likely to say something like "Vanity, some non-notable insurance company, delete spam." Typically there will be a more comments like that until someone with _some_ topic familiarity runs across the VfD entry. THEN someone chimes in "The firm is really quite large, unless I'm very much mistaken." Then there are follow- ups "It's a Fortune 500 company," "Definite keep," "Keep article on major financial force of the twentieth century," "Need more articles like this," etc.

A newbie who joins the discussion at an early stage does not understand that his article is not in imminent threat, that there will be a full week for people who have knowledge of the topic to notice and join in, that the curt dismissiveness tone is shorthand, etc.

To Wikipedians, "Votes for Deletion" means "even though several hundred people can delete articles, we take deletion so seriously that we hash over everything for a week."

It really does seem to me that there might be ways to make the process more intelligible to newcomers. I honestly believe that the :current process _induces_ bad behavior from new contributors who might not naturally show it.

I'm thinking something like this:


 * a) Change the name of Votes for Deletion to something like Editorial Review.


 * b) Every article when submitted automatically gets a tag at the top, saying something like "New article, not yet reviewed."


 * c) Like any other edit, anybody can remove this tag, but, by custom, it is removed by someone knowledgeable who has made a judgement that it does not need to go to Editorial Review.


 * d) If the article looks like VfD-worthy material, the tag gets replaced with a tag saying, you know, "This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Editorial Review and may not be accepted. Please see its entry on that page for justifications and discussion. If you want the page accepted, please read the acceptance guidelines and vote for its acceptance there. Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered. However, you are welcome to make improvements to it."


 * d) The VfD notice itself could be reworded to something like this: "An editor has requested an editorial review of this article to see whether it can be accepted under our guidelines. Please see [its entry on in Wikipedia:Editorial Review] for justifications and discussion. If you want the page accepted, please read [this guide] and partipate in the review process. Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered. However, you are welcome to make improvements to it."

Yeah, I know, flipping it around from "deletion" to "acceptance" makes me gag, too.

There is a disconnect. Many newcomers do not and never will read all the scattered policy documents (and it is in the Wikinature that they always will be scattered and not perfectly clear or consistent). Many newcomers have the misperception that everything is allowed in Wikipedia unless it's outright false. Warnings about "ruthless editing" don't really convey the way it works.

Everybody understands the concept of submitting an article for review and possibly having it be rejected. If newcomers perceive Wikiprocess as a variation of that model, fewer of them will be unnecessarily shocked or offended by the VfD process.

Maybe.

Thoughts? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice analysis. I like your proposal, even though b) doesn't feel very much in keeping with wiki spirit. Yet, it ensures that at least 2 different people edit an article early on (assuming we enact the policy that the tag can't be removed by the article's creator). Also, I think that this Editorial Review shouldn't be only a replacement for VfD but should also cover what is currently done at Cleanup. _R_ 15:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The name "Editorial Review" doesn't explain what it actually is and what it actually *does*. Between confusion and clarity I will always vote in favour of clarity, no matter whose feelings may be bruised. So, no, I'm against removing the word "deletion" from this page. Also I think I'm against putting *all* new articles through this process -- I think this would make Wikipedia a bit more hostile and elitist and newbie-unfriendly. Aris Katsaris 16:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I support changing the VfD to ER (The shortcut fits really nicely, considering the normal meaning, emergency room ;-). I was thinking about, yesterday, how VfD is just as much Vots against deletion, so a neutral title seems better. It also emphasized that the result of a VfD review is not necessarily deletion. The message must make obvious that deletion is a likely outcome of the review, though, so that people opposing its deletion will take the chance and make their voice heard. &mdash; David Remahl 18:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I like it. "Editorial Review" as a name, and the basic notion of rephrasing for greater neutrality.  Perhaps VfD can become "Editorial Review:Deletion", and cleanup "Editorial Review:Cleanup", since there is a significant distinction between the two;

then the second part of making VfD more friendly would be to get people to use Cleanup for salvageable articles. +sj + 21:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I was concerned about the overlap with Peer review more than Cleanup, due to the similarity in names, but I really like David Remahl's point about ER as a shortcut. Next I look forward to seeing people declare a page DOA (bad humor, I know, but some of the problem with comments on VfD is that it's a lot like a patient overhearing the morbid remarks common among medical practitioners that weren't intended for the patient to hear). --Michael Snow 21:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some Disagreements
I dislike renaming from a definite and clear name to a vague name. While it may not be your intention, a name change sounds like an attempt to also change VfD policy to support a stronger retentionist viewpoint. After all Cleanup is also an editorial review. And, against _R_, there is a great difference in purpose between VfD and Cleanup, though that VfD sometimes results in a cleanup and retention is a good thing.

I mostly otherwise approve the suggested wording of the new tag. Incuding the words "editorial review" is good regardless of whether VfD is given a new name. I would suggest that "can be accepted" should be changed to "should be retained" since there is not now and never has been any official acceptance procedure in Wikipedia either for new articles or edits.

Dpbsmith stated: "Contributors don't realize it, but if it survives twenty- four hours without a notice having been placed on it, it has already been 'accepted.'" Not true and should not be true. Older articles also often appear on VfD. There has never been a time limit on "acceptance" or "rejection" for either new articles or changes. Anything can be changed by anyone at any time though it may have sat unchanged for years. Nothing is necessarily permanently accepted or rejected.

Dpbsmith stated: "Like any other edit, anybody can remove this tag, but, by custom, it is removed by someone knowledgeable who has made a judgement that it does not need to go to Editorial Review."This invites gaming and futile debate about who is knowledgeable.

I agree that some kind of easy editorial rating system would be good, but surely that is a separate issue from any changes made to VfD. Also, editorial rating should apply as much to changes as to original articles. Are you suggesting that once an article has this tag removed, it could not ever be sumbitted to VfD? (or cleanup). If so ... that is unacceptable. It would put absolute power to force acceptance of any article forever into the hands of any single Wikipedian editor, not matter how POV or ignorant that editor might be about the subject of that particular article.

If this is not your intention, then your "new article" tag idea should be a separate proposal since at any time an article would still be placible on VfD (or cleanup), just as it is now (and just as it should be). And it should not be restricted only to new articles. Changes can be far more radical than a new article. Jallan 17:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It really is a completely separable proposal. Support for it is lukewarm. Accordingly I've put strikemarks through that part. What i'm really concerned about is the possibility that the present naming and wording of the notice do not communicate clearly and are unnecessarily confrontational to some users unfamiliar with the Wikipedian culture. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that Editorial Review actually is too vague to be useful. But I do support perhaps renaming Vfd something like "Consideration for Deletion", but it's important for the title to be clear, accurate and descriptive. Votes for deletion is. Editorial Review isn't. So I fear it's softening the language just for sensitivity's sake, and gives less information about its purpose than before. Yes, it can be jarring for newbies to see their new work being voted on for deletion. But I don't think this rebranding is the answer. Fuzheado | Talk 23:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Middle of the road proposal
Seems to me that a VfD is always started by an announcement of somebody proposing that an article be deleted. It is obviously less neutral, and can be seen as more aggrssive, than an announcement that would say the article need a community review. On the other hand that announcement would mean anyway that there is some doubts from the proponent of the review that the article should be finally accepted, and this announcement would give a motive for those doubts. So there would be some problem of consistancy betwween For consistancy and clarity, but to avoid the aggressiveness, I think something like "acceptance under moratorium" (or some better wording based on the same idea) would do. VfD might coexist, but might adopt a similar wording (like "continuation under moratorium"), to be used for existing articles that are getting out of hand, or create legal problems, or have become obsolete --Pgreenfinch 17:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * the neutral title "Editorial review"
 * and the reality of the proposal which would be "I doubt myself that this article is worthy, but it is up to community to take a stance".


 * Sure. Fine-tune the name and the notice. "Editorial review" is just my suggestion and it may be too positive a spin. Whatever it's called, listing on VfD is not pleasant to the author of the VfD-ed article. Not if they understand what's going on. And we should not tweak the wording to the point of miscommunication or dishonesty in the other direction. And the general tone and conduct of most VfD discussions will be the same no matter what it's called. I truly believe, having watched the Dartmouth follies, that the current way we present things is resulting in some newbies feeling bitten when they should only feel barked at. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning. Vfd is indeed, a peer review for inclusion.  Speedy Delete  material, which rarely makes it to Vfd, is the sub-par, unencyclopedic stuff.  The Steve  06:17, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Another middle of the road proposal might be Wikipedia:Requests for deletion - it avoids the ambiguity and slightly euphemistic nature of "editorial review" but is not quite so harsh as "Votes". It also is more consistent with the RfC framework. Pcb21| Pete 21:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I like that idea. "Editorial review" is too vague, and VfD and Cleanup are both kind of overloaded already so combining them seems like it'd cause more problems than it'd solve.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Article inclusion debates? - 00:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)


 * That's pretty good, although personally I still want to soften "debate." How about Article inclusion review? Or is that too wimpy? How about this for a notice: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 '''This article has been challenged as possibly unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

A five day article inclusion review will consider the challenge and determine whether the article is kept or removed. If you don't want the article removed, first read this guide, then participate in the review. While the review is in process you are welcome to improve the page, but please do not remove this notice or blank this page.


 * I was thinking of something along the lines of:


 * Something like that, anyway. - 15:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)


 * I rather like this one, though I think it's important the five-day duration be mentioned. Denni &#9775; 16:35, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)


 * That's better than mine. The only thing I think it's missing is an indication that the debate is going to last for five days, which I think is important for shocked newbies to understand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, nearly perfect imo, at the same time constructively worded and quite clear (by including a mention of the 5 day debate time) about what is at stake --Pgreenfinch 16:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I just posted in invitation in the Village Pump for people to participate here. I added one more tweak ("Debate will not be closed before September 3rd") and gave this as an example of a current proposal: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this is great! But even the word debate is contentious. VfD discussions shouldn't necessarily be framed in terms of argument. That's why I think "inclusion review" is better. It has a sense of being definitive without being negative. See my post to wikiEN. I would therefore advocate

Nohat 02:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lateral Proposal: Okay, this may seem strange to some, but why not use one of the new templates above to mark an article itself before it goes to VfD. It seems like VfD is often far more crowded than it needs to be. Also, sometimes authors agree with the deletion request, or the person who original requested deletion can be convinced by the author to more to Cleanup instead. So I propose this: It seems to me that this scenario would keep a lot of hostility out of VfD and questions of content can be put to the original contributor who can discuss it with the challenger and not feel overwhelmed by a bunch of people voting for or against him/her. I know it would be a policy change, but I just thought it made more sense and would be worth posting. Skyler 20:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't change the name of the Votes for Deletion page.
 * When an article is reviewed by someone who thinks it is inappropriate, we can have a template to put on the article (but not actually put it on separate page) to notify the original author(s) that it is being called into question.
 * The original reasoning behind the challenge to the content can be listed on the page's talk page and discussed between the author and the challenger (and any others who stumble across or are called into the debate).
 * The challenge will be listed alone on the talk page for 5 days. If the author(s) or no other observers rise to the challenge and give legitimate reasoning for keeping, moving to cleanup, etc. the page can be listed on VfD and really voted for whether or not to delete. If the author(s) (or other observers) debate to a standstill, it may also be listed on VfD, but only after considerate discussion regarding the need.
 * The VfD page will only be a straight up or down vote. Delete or keep. Any other matters of transwiki, list of cleanup, etc. can be discussed on the talk page if the consensus is to keep.

Dartmouth Headaches
For those of you suffering Dartmouth headaches... (well, this might go for tfd, but hey, I guess some of you might get a good laugh out of it) a new template, "Dartmouth-vfd" has been created for that purpose. - Allyunion 23:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO one of the problems with the Dartmouth class assignment was overreaction to it, and this is just more of the same. My suggestion is that when you feel the joke has been appreciated by those who will, you nominate this template and also the category you created for deletion yourself. Andrewa 17:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion phrases
A few of us have written an article called Votes for deletion phrases that explains the meaning behinds some short, seemingly rude phrases people use on vfd. I've linked them off the current template, and think they should be linked to regardless of what the page or template becomes, because people are going to continue to use the same words to vote, regardless of what its called. &mdash; siro &chi;  o  20:01, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * A good idea and a good page. I don't like your explanation of "patent nonsense," though, and in fact am concerned about an apparent expansion in the scope of that term lately. The definition of Patent nonsense is very, very narrow. It includes things like "asdfasdfasdf?!!!" and "dan rulz! this site rocks" and "riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs." It does not mean "an article that is so bad that I can confidently predict that VfD regulars will give it a quick and unanimous vote to delete" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Seconded, many thanks to siroxo et al for the useful guide. That's also a good point about the growing misuse of "patent nonense", Dpbsmith. Unfortunately, the only way to stomp it out is to consistently point it out to those who throw around the term too loosely to the policy page. More work than it's worth, I think. :-/ &bull; Benc &bull; 01:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:VfDSection
A new template, VfDSection has been added. I found manually replacing PageName to be annoyance, so I decided to try something. If anyone cares to test it out, you can use it by:   where PageName is the name you wish to delete. One thing I haven't figured out is why the link is red... - Allyunion 00:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Notice: Not working right, but if anyone cares to mess around with it, please do. -- Allyunion 00:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If it did work it still couldn't be used on VfD, since the same template can only be included up to 5 times in a page. (You can't get around it with subst: either, since parameters don't work in subst) Goplat 02:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The bug in subst parameters is bug #89, BTW.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm fascinated
We currently have a work, a minor work in some ways but a catalogued and acknowledged work, by Beethoven listed on VfD. Um, I'm dumbstruck.

And it seems to be part of a pattern. Many users new to VfD seem to list a large number of borderline and not even borderline cases, such as this one, in their first month or even their first week here. I wonder whether there is some way of encouraging them to lurk a little first, and to list just one article per week for their first few until they get the hang of it? Andrewa 13:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I like to think it's because the standard of many of our articles is so high now that newbies don't realise just how crappy some of them started out. I think the best way to encorage newbies not to list articles innapropriately is to just ask them not to. A quick note on thier userpages should do it. Theresa Knott (The token star) 14:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a couple of good points. I do write them notes from time to time. I was wondering whether something more proactive would be good... a note in the head or foot text of VfD, or in the deletion policy, say. Andrewa 14:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That would be good. IMHO there's an increasing tendency to delete articles (especially stubs), a tendency which is (for the most part) against the spirit of Wikipedia. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I share that analysis, although the phenomenom is not general. Deletion wars are rarer in other languages wikipedia, people think a little more before rushing to the VfD button. There, VfD is considered as the last resort ...WMD. The community prefers, tacitly, first to try make the articles better, and to find balanced solutions. Maybe because those other languages wikipedia are more recent, then, to put it mildly, lesson givers had less time to emerge ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 10:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Confused
I'm confused. A majority of people voted to delete European Union Olympic medals count for 2004, but after Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 was removed from VFD no action to delete the article. Mintguy (T) 14:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Snake Eyes, it's the opinion of this court that you're guilty as sin, but there ain't enough dang evidence. Git. - The Judge in Rick O'Shay. I voted and argued strongly to delete, and that's still my view, but I'd have to say I don't think we achieved a clear consensus, so it stays IMO. Whoever delisted it should have noted this on the VfD subpage, and then we all should move on. Andrewa 07:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. Deletion_policy says "Decision Policy: To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on VfD, and any votes or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith. At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" has been reached (some would call this a 2/3 majority) to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains. The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted."
 * If you take out the five sock puppets, the majority vote was a more than 2:1 to delete. Mintguy (T) 17:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Or, if I can add my two cents of euro, the 5 votes that some fancied as sockpuppets. --Pgreenfinch 17:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I made the decision to keep the page, and I stand by it. I do apologize for forgetting to close the debate, however.  My count put the vote at about 32 to 19 in favour of deletion. (I always count merge votes as keeps as they propose keeping the content.  Postdlf's vote has to be ignored as merge and delete is an invalid option.  You could also add on an extra keep vote from myself).  32 to 19 might be a borderline consensus; however, the page has been dramatically altered and improved since the vote began, and the first seven delete votes are referring to a very different article than the one that now exists.  Thus doubt over consensus existed and my only option was to keep the page.  Feel free to relist the page in the future, and if the vote tilts the other way I will certainly delete it. - SimonP 18:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a very solid justification; thanks for explaining it. For my own reference, though, what do you do when you suspect sock puppeteering? (In case anyone was wondering: I voted delete, but am perfectly happy with the keep result.) &bull; Benc &bull; 02:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Breaking news. As an additional information for those interested in the topic, here is the EU Commission statement: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_sports/view/104044/1/.html --Pgreenfinch 21:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dartmoor wildlife
Is Dartmoor wildlife another remains of the Dartmoor College assignment? I can't tell. --Allyunion 23:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Dartmoor is a part of southwestern england. Dartmouth is a college in the US.  So no, it's not. Dartmoor wildlife is a most excellent article. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 23:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Who cares? You should judge an article on its own merits. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't be too quick on the trigger. There are quite a few things in the world called Dartmouth (meaning literally the mouth of the Dart river, IIRC). England and Australia off the top of my head. There's a town named Dartmouth in Massachusetts as well, and it has a branch of UMass. We shouldn't start shooting at everything named Dartmouth, let alone everything beginning with Dart-. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] P. S. There's also a famous old prison there, and it is the setting for the Sherlock Holmes novel, The Hound of the Baskervilles. P. P. S. And there's also a Darton college [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]]


 * It's why I asked in Discussion rather than listed on the VfD page. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 10:00, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Er, Dartmoor is one of the largest National Parks in England. Definitely notable. Oh, and Dartmouth, England, is home to the Britannia Royal Naval College (the British naval academy) and the point from which the Pilgrim Fathers originally left for America. Again, notable. -- Necrothesp 13:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)