Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 4

Archive of October 2003 – December 2003

Summarised discussion from 12-30 October
''This discussion has been summarised. The full version can be seen here.


 * 1) Angela moved lots of items from Things to be moved to Wiktionary to VfD because they had been there so long with no-one dealing with them. Ridiculous objections were made to so many items being listed at once so she removed them and is now listing only one at a time.
 * 2) Cimon avaro questioned the listing of personal sub-pages here. Angela felt the people involved should be told. Evil saltine removed the listing.
 * 3) Pete removed the instructions from the top of the page and appealed for the waffle to be kept out. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions for more
 * 4) Jwrosenzweig pointed out duplicate entries on VfD. (maybe due to section edit conflicts)
 * 5) DJ Clayworth reverted what he assumed was an accidental deletion of the comment by Modemac.
 * 6) &#25140;&#30505sv alluded to VfD page size issues. Taku said things should be listed at Cleanup to avoid this. He felt pages could be redirected or blanked unless they were copyright violations. Angela said blanking should never be done (shows up on the list of blank pages and means the links are not red).
 * 7) SGBailey suggested splitting VfD in day pages. Morven pointed out that this had been tried and said the majority hated it. Angela disputed this and asked people to read archive 2 and the start of archive 3 for the previous discussion on daily subpages.
 * 8) Angela suggested reducing the waiting time from 7 days to 4 or 5 as 75% of people supported the idea. Fuzheado agreed.
 * 9) FearÉIREANN noted the size of VfD and the prevalence of edit conflicts. The splitting of VfD into day pages was suggested again as unless the waiting time was reduced to three days, VfD would still be too large. Angela said there were two options; change the page (daily subpages or split by topic) or change the policy (reduce the waiting time, delete things after three days where no-one has objected, stop anyone with less than 200 edits from commenting - less discussion and less ballot stuffing). She also suggested that people stop attacking those who try to help on the page in order to encourage more people to try to keep VfD smaller. Morven said personal attacks were unavoidable and a thicker skin was needed. Angela said we should give up on the idea of attaining consensus and set an actual percentage of votes required to make things more clear-cut. BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; supported all of these suggestions and asked that people be a bit nicer. &mdash;Eloquence made similar suggestions to the mailing list asking Jimbo for a decision. He also suggested moving all discussions to the talk pages. Angela pointed out this meant visiting 52 pages and pleaded such an idea not be implemented. Morven suggested that just complex issues be moved, and that this be integrated into the official policy. FearÉIREANN asked that where discussions are moved, they should go to separate /delete pages, not talk pages so debates are not lost when pages are deleted and so the issue is not forgotten about. Morven said the problem with moving discussion somewhere else is it gets biased towards those with strong enough feelings about the article and said only complicated cases should be taken elsewhere. Martin objects to /delete subpages except where necessary, particularly where the article has no normal talk page. Finlay McWalter agreed with Angela's suggestions and added that the software needs an automated vote option. He said that a page's author should not be allowed to vote 'keep' and anon users should not be allowed to vote at all. Fuzheado felt a page's author should be allowed to vote. JamesDay said the size issue could be largely solved by using cleanup.
 * 10) RickK objected to refactoring of his comments on VfD. Jake agreed that the content of comments ought be preserved. Martin said "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" but agreed that the reasons for deletion should be kept and explained that his refactoring was done in good faith.
 * 11) DJ Clayworth said he had removed an already-deleted item from VfD. bdesham and Angela said this was a good thing.
 * 12) zandperl asked whether she could view deleted pages. Angela said she would need to go to VfU.
 * 13) 2toise asked (originally on the village pump) whether it was ok to edit a page after it had been listed on VfD. Axlrosen, Andre Engels, Smerdis of Tlön and Morven all felt it was ok. Cleanup was shamelessly plugged once again by Cimon Avaro and JamesDay. Smith03 explained that the issue was with the Santorum article rather than with the editing of VfD'd pages in general as the edit appeared to be trying to avoid the issue of deletion by moving objectionable content elsewhere. 2toise felt the inflamatory material had been removed and that Smith03 was misrepresenting the situation. Fuzheado asid that if articles are edited, you should note the fact at VfD.
 * 14) Angela said that over 30 per cent of VfD was about lists and that a policy on these was needed so the same thing was not debated every week. Onebyone agreed and said that most lists should be removed. Phil advertised WikiTrivia as a possible solution.
 * 15) Phil proposed making each item a header. Angela suggested he read archive 3 as the idea had been previously rejected.

Multiple accounts
I've been rather dismayed by the increase in votes from user accounts created solely for the purpose of voting on VfD (see this section at Problem users). Considering all the recent discussion about VfD both on WikiEN-l and here on Wikipedia, it's certainly helping to emphasize some of the problems that some people see. I'm agnostic on whether this is someone working to demonstrate the problems with VfD or just some person/people having a bit of fun. But whatever it is, it is annoying. -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:10, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * This is being addressed by the proposed modifications to the policy whereby votes are discounted if the user has less than x number of edits, or if it is felt their vote was not made in good faith. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Angela

Deletion Policy
People keep listing articles on VfD because they're bad articles. I'm not sure whether this is because of a difference of opinion as to what the deletion policy says, or just because not everyone has read it (the first time I listed an article for deletion, I don't think I'd read the whole policy). Am I in a small minority, or is there a case for "educating" users only to list articles if there shouldn't be an article at all, as opposed to because the current article is poor? Onebyone 11:19, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree. Just because there should be an article, doesn't mean the one there currently should be kept. Perhaps there 'should' be an article on the National Curriculum in England but if someone just wrote some nonsense about how they didn't like the National Curriculum or something else below the standard required, then that should be deleted regardless of the importance of the topic. I'm not saying all poor articles should be deleted, but there are some minimum standards and if a page does not meet those then it is perfectly acceptable to list it for deletion. Basically, VfD is not about whether there ought to be an article, it's about whether this article is worthy of being included. Angela


 * I've started to copy fresh VFD-candidates I personally think are salvageable on Cleanup, since I am not quite bold enough to just simply move them outright. But maybe it might not be a bad idea to move obviously salvageable articles there, with the note that they came from VFD, and should be returned, if no fixup was forthcoming. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:58, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)


 * [comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Cleanup]

How to make "Pages needing attention" as popular as VfD
What's so fun about this page? Please see Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention if you have any ideas. Angela


 * [comment moved to Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention. See also Deletion is a valuable tool]

Attacks on VfD
I really need some help on the WikiEN-l mailing list, where there are proposals floating around to have a SIX MONTH moratorium on deleting ANYTHING from Wikipedia. RickK 03:57, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)~


 * Don't panic! Daniel Quinlan 04:06, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Going by last month's figures of over 800 pages being deleted a week, there would be over 20,000 articles listed on VfD at the end of the six months. I have a slight feeling James' proposal may be somewhat unrealistic. Rick, don't worry about it. It's all nonsense and like the vast majority of 'issues' on the mailing list will likely be replaced by some equally innane topic within a week. Angela 04:24, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Aren't straw men supposed to be confined to the mailing list?:) Seems unlikely that there are 800 pages added to VfD a week right now. You're right that I hadn't really intended to include obvious vandalism in no deletes, though.JamesDay 08:31, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You said a ban of all deletions. What is it you're against? VfD or deletion. The two are very different things. Only half of what's listed on VfD is deleted and only 7% of what's deleted is listed on VfD. Angela 08:42, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did, for a brief time. Deleting obvious vandalism seems uncontroversial. I'm opposed to the way the VfD process wastes time, and discourages newcomers who get listed there instead of encouraged and educated. I'm not forever opposed to any deletes - only until we've had some quiet time to work out more efficient ways to get rid of obvious junk which doesn't get improved in a reasonable time. See my post to wikein-l for more on the theme of trying to find less time-consuming and strife-producing ways to get things done. I'm for finding better ways to do things more than I'm against deletes and oe of the proposals has articles being deleted if they get consistently low scores for six months. JamesDay 09:56, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Strife? Wastes time?  Deletion (in moderation) improves the Wikipedia.  Daniel Quinlan 10:04, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that deletion in moderation improves the Wikipedia. I don't think that the process we have now is a good way of doing it. Jamesday 23:32, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * BTW, Angela's latest VfD quotes are great, to which I add:
 * A lot of horrible articles are rewritten regularly and removed from VfD because there's pressure to delete them. That's good just like having polar bears eat cute baby seals is good. -- Daniel Quinlan
 * Fuzheado 04:50, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I've removed all this stuff that's just been added to the top of the page.... continued at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions


 * Call it proposed deletions! ... Moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title

VfD is 64 kBytes
Am i old-fashioned, or is anyone else concerned abt having a notice saying 32kB pages should be shortened to facilitate wide access, when a crucial voting page is twice that large? If i am just old-fashioned, Stop Me Before I Edit Again, say tomorrow (Wed.). What i propose is restructuring this very naturally into an extremely short page that
 * links to 6 pages that
 * link back to it, and
 * link forward and back to
 * the previous and
 * next days' pages.
 * Further details:
 * 6, not 7? Yes, bcz:
 * the 6th will grow from maybe 12 to maybe 20 or 24 kB, well under danger point, and
 * so the most recent still calls attention to the recent midnite-UTC boundary.
 * Why not repeat the current intro matter (i.e., what's before TOC) on each page.
 * Once the overall change is made, is there a reason that new individual deletion proposals should not become sections? -- Jerzy
 * Jerzy notes that the following bullet point is the result of an edit by Waveguy at 02:55 UTC:
 * questions: sections of the same document? or fixed 6 or 7 pages? which alternative is more risk for people losing track? does my watch list automatically include "sections"?
 * Jerzy, for clarification of the original proposal, but not in defense of it, amplifies: (1) I saw each of a week's worth of 1-day pages probably having a section for each deletion proposal, instead of the present bullet point for each proposal, if the question is about the sections i mentioned. That would create a TOC entry for each proposal, for ease in tracking those of interest as comments were added day by day. (2) My proposal was for sections (optionally), but inherantly for separate pages, on the assumption that the number and length of proposals can't be reduced and the only way left was to get them onto more pages.  But not "fixed" pages; more like rotating pages, one new, one a day old, and so on, with every page being retired after about 7 days. (3) no comment. (4) The "My watchlist" on most screens brings up pages that neither have sections, nor are sensitive to the sections on the pages you are watching.  In fact, i can't imagine any way to use your watchlist in conjunction with VfD (or the 6 or 7 pages that would be linked from VfD) that wouldn't work better by using the histories of the same pages instead. -- But maybe those questions weren't meant for me. --Jerzy 04:15, 2003 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * You may want to read archive 3 which contains details of a rather large edit war that happened last time this excellent idea was trialled. Angela 17:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Angela. I was thinking of spinning off redirects for deletion. What do you think? Daniel is the other person to consult, of course, because I know he has feelings on the issue. Another way to ease the pressure on the one big page. Martin 19:18, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would do much to solve the issue of page size. Redirects account for very few of the listings. Lists for deletion might have more of an effect. Angela 20:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Restraint in adding new pages (Cleanup is a good place for "check in a month" items) and doing a look at the first 50 or so Google summaries before listing on VfD as "will never be more than a dictionary entry" would be helpful. Removing anything with three unopposed "keep" opinions after 48 hours would also be helpful. Not the same for deletes because those who are less interested in deleting can be expected to visit less frequently. Jamesday 21:14, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can keep advertising Cleanup, but I think people need to see it actually working before they change their habits about listing here. Cleanup already has 200 pages listed and without a time limit on how long those stay, the page is going to become very stale in the same way Pages needing attention has. Until Cleanup is used more, there needs to be a way of making VfD smaller, not of changing the actual process, which is what Cleanup is trying to do. With separate VfD pages, people could focus only on the one they are interested in. For example, some people are very interested in discussing issues of fair use, with they can do on a VfD subpage rather than the main VfD. The division by type of problem lets people who are driven mad by such legalistic issues ignore it compeltely. Similarly, there may be other topics on VfD which some people will always want to discuss and others really don't about. Apart from lists, I'm not sure what those topics are though. Any ideas? Angela 21:30, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not keen on splitting VfD much more than it is already split, except by day of week (rather than pure dated, though I suspect that it will still receive a cool welcome). Part of the requirement for the process is enough people viewing it to have some reasonable prospect of finding out the consensus about an article. I agree with you about the lack of a timeline on Cleanup. I simply don't think that Cleanup will be used by those who want something deleted unless there is some timeline and I agree with the desire for a timeline for many types of newbie creations. How does the concept of a page with one section for each day number in the month sound, with listings moved to VfD the next time that day number arrives? That would provide a month long holding area without completely losing track of something which merits deletion if it's not worked on. Should be a bit more friendly to newbies as well, giving them time to get used to this place. Jamesday 22:36, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Part of the requirement for the process is enough people viewing it

Unless we go silly, I think we'll get that. After all, if we have seperate VfD subpages, then each page can be listed for longer, so the net effect is as many eyeballs. Perhaps more, as we lose the edit conflicts and such stuff that disincentivises people to come here. I'm going to create lists for deletion now. I still think redirects for deletion is a good idea - I just removed a few as resolved, but had there been more page space, I'd have held on for a bit - I always like more space. Martin 23:18, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) (see EnlargeSpace)


 * Separating lists for deletion is a legitimate idea, since those seem to be perennially debated by the same culprits. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:04, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

clearing space
I already do this. rm(r) is your friend. Martin 01:17, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * We should allow articles to be removed immediately from the VfD list if they have been fixed or redirected. This would help clear up some space, no? Kingturtle 23:36, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Who decides when something is (adequately) fixed? Andy Mabbett 23:42, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * For example, I posted Fukue,Keita to the list. Tlotoxl, after some research, fixed it. Shouldn't we be able to remove it now? Kingturtle 23:46, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer Andy Mabbett's question. Who decides?
 * My answer was implied. To say it explicitly, if *I* nominate an article, and someone makes changes that make me feel the article has been salvaged, shouldn't *I* get to decide that the article can be removed from VfD? In other words, I should be able to pull any of my nominations off the list at any time. Kingturtle 01:26, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * No, I think you shouldn't list an article if you think it can be salvaged. Just change your vote, indicate your vote changed, and it's not likely to be deleted.  The decision should be made on objective criteria.  Most of the removals seem to have been okay so far, but it would be better if we had a minimal bar for removal such as greater than 50% votes to keep with at least 5 votes cast.  Daniel Quinlan 01:30, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * I never nominate articles i think have hope. I place those in Clean Up or in Pages Needing Attention. But it is not uncommon for users with great expertise to turn what I thought was garbage into worthwhile writing. And since we are always trying to conserve space on VfD, I thought it would be in our interest if users could remove their nominations at will. Kingturtle 01:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * What does rm(r) mean? Kingturtle 01:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * "rm" is the Unix command to remove files. "rm -r" will remove all files and directories under a directory.  Daniel Quinlan 01:20, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Not quite: rm(r) means "removed: resolved". rm(d) means "removed: deleted". Not sure whose innovation that was. Martin 01:27, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is frankly rather non-intuitive for Unix people. Daniel Quinlan 01:32, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Tim Starling's user page has a handy abbreviation->explanation list. Dysprosia 01:28, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This can be a problem when the original title is the source of most of the issue. Especially titles that are offensive, POV, or especially inaccurate or confusing.  I think it's bad practice to remove those.  I think it would be better to relist the original posting at the bottom with emptied votes if you must.  Daniel Quinlan 01:20, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * For some redirects, yes. For others, no. But this is why we need redirects for deletion. Seperate the issues. Martin 01:27, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I always though rm(r) was removed (redirected). There does need to be some sort of guidance as to when this is acceptable or there's going to be fights over people improperly removing things. Angela 06:40, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, as a rule, if you remove an article from VfD because it's been (you believe properly) redirected, you should then list it on redirects for deletion? Martin


 * Sounds sensible. Angela 00:08, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the person who nominated a particular article for VfD cannot have the right to withdraw that nomination. I nominated Furman v. Georgia and two days later, Jamesday expanded it emmensely. I am happy with it now, and no one else has chimed in. I should have the right to remove it from the VfD page. Please explain why that would be bad. Kingturtle 21:35, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, the person who nominated is the best person to remove it if resolved. I often un-nominate things I've listed when I realise there is no longer a reason to list it. Angela 22:55, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re-emerging debates
Is there some kind of guideline on what to do when, after consensus or at least a majority decision has been reached (delete it, merge it, keep it as a stub for the time being, or whatever) and a particular matter is accordingly dropped, it is revived at a later point by someone who has just discovered Wikipedia or that particular article?

I'm asking this question in the context of the re-emerging AIDS kills fags dead discussion (I don't have to worry about the correct link here, do I?), but there are others I could think of. --KF 09:35, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There is something called Votes for undeletion; and AIDS kills fags dead has been a regular there IIRC. But apparently, since all our deletions are in general fairly uncntroversial, it gets very little play most of the time. In fact, people probably easily forget it exists. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 19:11, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * If the article is not deleted then all debate should be collated on the talk page (or an archive thereof) of the article in question. If the article *is* deleted then archived talk should be put on some page and then linked to from Archived delete debates. Newcomers are always welcome to re-open debates, although old hands will always encourage them to read old talk to save where possible going through the same debate (this doesn't always work perfectly!) Pete 20:58, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think people should look at the archived deletion debate, and make sure they fully understand the backlog, then add any new arguments they can bring to the table, then discuss the issue with those who previously expresse an opinion, and if they think they can get a rough consensus in favour of some outcome, then and only then raise the issue on VfD.
 * Of course, all this takes effort, and sadly some folks think it's easier to just list the article on VfD. Martin 21:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A radical suggestion.
Hmm. I was thinking. And what came to mind was a silly idea that entries should be listed on VFD for say 11 days, but discussion should only take place on the three last days.

Meaning that if you wanted, you could create files like: User:foobarf/delete and User:foobarf/defend and just cut and paste the prepared argument formed therein, once the argument-period opened. AAARGH. I am being too verbose again. I really want to hear other views about this... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:07, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a nice way of people clumsy with arguments, like me, to prepare. I already feel the antecipation of the opening day... But i tink 11 days is too much. Perhaps 3 waiting + 3 replying. Muriel Victoria 12:12, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * There was a suggestion on, I think, Village pump from orthogonal for separating arguments around listed pages from the actual vote. I think a combination of that idea plus a waiting period might be good. Bmills 12:34, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * That sounds very time-consuming. I'm not sure I see the point. Often articles are removed from here after a day or two when they have clearly been fixed and everyone is saying keep. Why drag that out for 11 days, only for everyone to say 'keep' anyway? Angela 18:59, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * As per current policy it's ok to remove pages from VfD before 7 days if they're obviously fixed isn't it? Pete 00:20, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes. For some value of "obvious". Martin 00:21, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * As long as you can justify it when someone objects and asks you to explain. Probably if someone objects, they should just relist it though. Angela 00:33, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't really like this idea. I don't understand what problem it is attempting to fix.  Most of the "problems" cited with VfD are not really problems, just vague objections to the procedure or the act of deleting pages.  Daniel Quinlan 04:16, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized sub-dividing VfD has been previously rejected. But it's incredibly difficult to navigate and to edit without sub-divisions. How about separate pages for each day? This would also make archiving easier. orthogonal 22:52, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Ok - you persuade Eloquence and that's what we'll do. Please read the archives. Angela 23:08, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * template.... -> Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions

Votes for deletion
Is it possible that this page can be shortened? Maybe some of the older sections can be put in a separate archive? It's gotten to over sixty kilobytes, and it's taking quite long to load.

Denelson83 08:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think so, maybe the sysop should cleanup this page now and again. --Yacht 09:15, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

I need direction
When Maveric ordered us to put the VfD header on pages listed on the VfD page, I objected on the grounds that such actions were unnecessary. I got absolutely no support, and acceded to the will of the majority and began putting the headers on the pages I listed on VfD. Now The Cunctator is unilaterally deleting the headers from pages still under discussion, and even going so far as to mask his actions as Minor edits. I brought this to the attention of the mailing list, and got absolutely no support. In fact, the only people to comment on Cunctator's actions supported him.

Will somebody please tell me when the rules change? I'm getting whiplash from all of the personal attacks made against me for not doing what everybody else wants done. RickK 03:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that not following the deletion policy is a problem. I don't read the mailing list, though.  I think a lot of people on the mailing list don't edit so much.  Can you cite some examples with specific links?  Daniel Quinlan 04:14, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * RickK: don't worry, you have support. Delirium answered, on the list.  In the article, I reinstated the VfD notice at the top. Fuzheado 07:38, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Rick, a lack of response on the mailing list does not equal a lack of support. More likely a lack of the desire to engage in pointless arguments. See Wikistress suggestion #21. Angela 18:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I asked Cunctator (on his talk page) why he was doing it. I've not gotten a response. On the pages I noticed, he didn't remove the VfD notice, but put it at the bottom of the page. (???) orthogonal 22:45, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * He moved them to the bottom of the page only after I objected to his removing them altogether. RickK 03:02, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The new boilerplate makes no sense
''This page has been listed as a candidate for deletion. In the normal day to day operations of Wikipedia, some pages are deleted. Please go to that page.... ''

What page? The old one mentioned the name of the page and then referred to it as "that page". This one doesn't mention a page, but tries to refer to it. Angela 18:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the new boilerplate is a bit silly. Though the signature is kinda a nice touch. So I'm ignoring it. :) Martin 20:02, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The signature is good but it still doesn't make sense and I can't think how it ought to be reworded. Angela 22:14, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Some idiotic deletionist has listed your page on _votes for deletion_, failing to appreciate the essential beauty and universal applicability of your fine writing. Please go to that page to flame them into a crisp and bitch about how you're being censored. Alternatively, find out where lives and hunt them down like the dog they are.


 * Or something else maybe. *shrug* Martin 22:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There would need to be an anti-inclusionist one for balance though. Angela 00:16, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This article does not deserve to be in Wikipedia, and therefore I have listed it on _votes for deletion_. No doubt some idiotic inclusionist will come up with some speculative reason why it should be kept, possibly involving the ideal lunar tinting for the navigation of aeronautic porcines, but you should ignore that and rest assured that this filth is destined for the great community-edited encyclopedia in the sky. Yours in disgust, 


 * Or somesuch. Martin 18:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorely tempted as I was to use Martin's version, I slapped some paintwork over the rusting hull that was the current boilerplate so that at least it makes grammatic sense. Pete 12:46, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Seriously better than it was. Bmills 12:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Separate delete pages
Subpages only serve to limit discussion and cause problematic articles/titles to be reintroduced here again and again. I wish certain people would stop creating them before a discussion is finished. Daniel Quinlan 05:45, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * Come back when you get a genie. Martin 20:29, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better way of keeping the page below 80kb? Angela 22:14, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion that addresses Daniel Quinlan's concern, though I doubt it will prove popular: separate the pages by article title. Votes for Deletion (A-M), Votes for Deletion (N-Z), Votes for Deletion (Numbers, Punctuation, Special Characters). Assume that titles beginning with accented characters are assigned to the alphabet page of the letter without the accent. orthogonal 22:40, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion, harder to categorize but perhaps more useful to read: separate pages for different sorts of delete-able pages: Votes for Deletion (stub); Votes for Deletion (vanity); Votes for Deletion (dictionary/wrong wiki); Votes for Deletion (absurd/factually incorrect); Votes for Deletion (vandalism/bizarre). orthogonal 22:40, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion: make a sub-page of the article for all deletions. Only votes go on VfD, all discussion goes on the sub-page. Scanning VfD becomes easier, adding a comment marginally harder (which will cut down on ill-considered or frivolous comments, too). orthogonal 22:40, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Votes for Deletion (A-M)
 * I don't think this would be as useful as splitting by day, which was unfortunately opposed, and we already have 5 subpages of VfD
 * Votes for Deletion (stub)
 * You can't delete things just because they are stubs. These should go on Cleanup
 * Votes for Deletion (vanity)
 * POV, possibly insulting title for those who get listed there.
 * Votes for Deletion (dictionary/wrong wiki)
 * If it's on the wrong wiki, just put it at transwiki and it can be moved. If it's for Wiktionary, you can list it at Things to be moved to Wiktionary or transwiki.
 * Votes for Deletion (absurd/factually incorrect)
 * Absurd may be too POV. Factually incorrect should be linked to Accuracy dispute and maybe listed at Cleanup
 * Votes for Deletion (vandalism/bizarre)
 * Isn't bizarre the same as the above absurd? Vandalism can be deleted instantly. If you're not a sysop, you can list it at Deleted test.
 * Sub-page of the article for all deletions
 * I think the thought of having to check 73 different pages to see the discussion would scare off even the hardcore deletionists. Angela 00:16, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's not a bug, but a feature! :) Fuzheado 03:22, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Write a fix to the wikipedia program that would allow Netscape users to edit pages of up to 100kb. Kingturtle 02:18, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Make the deletion policy more 'wiki': A vote isn't required for the page to be deleted. A sysop can either be bold and just delete something or he can be timid and suggest the change on the talk page... this is the way all other changes to articles happen. Is it really true in these enlightened days of undeletion technology that deletion has to be so different? Pete 12:52, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The undeletion tech is still fairly temperamental and, according to Tim Starling, not yet ready for large scale use. Nevertheless, many people advocate a deletion management redesign, which would allow anyone to delete a page, and anyone else to restore it. Martin 18:31, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To the top?
Why does the boilerplate need to be listed at the top? We don't list stub notices at the top. We don't list disambiguation notices at the top.


 * But we do list accuracy and neutrality disputes at the top, as a visible warning to the reader. I guess it depends whether you think the threat of deletion is a bit like a dispute over the page, or whether you think it's a bit like a chunk of combined metadata/explanation about the page (which is what stub and disambiguation notices are). Onebyone 00:49, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Neutrality disputes should be made aware of before reading the article, so people understand the situation beforehand and know what to expect.  VfD notice should as well, since there is only a five day listing time, and it's best to solicit opinions on the article. Fuzheado 01:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Top isn't really essential IMO. The important thing is an edit of any sort with something about adding VfD so that those watching the article will see it and get notice that something is happening. Anything else is relatively minor. Top is best, IMO, because so many listings are for new pages created by newcomers who won't have watch lists and because anons don't have watch lists - we need to use the top to communicate with them and may even need to write notes to them at the top, just to increase the chance of them seeing our communications. What bothers me more is regularly finding things on VfD for which no VfD notice was applied. Jamesday 14:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Boilerplate
Why was the shorter, simpler boilerplate removed? I disagree with the tone of the current boilerplate, but I fear that if I were to simply edit it, I would be accused of acting unilaterally. So I will simply mention my dissent here.

Why can't we trust people enough to tell them that they should put something to the effect of what the boilerplate says, without forcing them to use the exact text? Wikipedia is healthier when we build structures with flexibility, not rigidity. --The Cunctator 20:13, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I removed it. We've previously discussed this at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions. Good reasons have been provided why giving the instructions at the top is not helpful - those who wish to have such instructions should respond there. Martin 20:17, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --The Cunctator


 * It's been put back. There seemed to be overwhelming opposition at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions and here, so I re-removed it, but it was put back again. Shouldn't it remain removed? -- Mattworld 00:20, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Not sure to chalk it up to "overwhelming opposition" -- this if the first time I've run into this subpage, so it was perhaps not seen by a lot of folks. In the interest of transparency and being friendly to newbies, some type of brief basic instructions should be at the top of the page, with boilerplate, rigid or flexible. Fuzheado 01:26, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * OK, I won't chalk it up to "overwhelming", it's just that it seemed to be all opposition. Here's the thing: there are a ton of things in the Deletion Policy that would be nice to include on this page. User:Daniel Quinlan (I believe) tried to include the voting format section on the main page, only to be shot down by cries of "people should read deletion policy anyway!" What might be nicest for newbies is not a boilerplate, but the "what to list" section from the deletion policy. But we can't. Wikipedia created the Deletion Policy section for people to read before a newbie starts posting stuff. You must read it before posting to VfD, and that includes the boilerplate. There is no reason to single out the boilerplate from this page and put it on the main VfD page; the Deletion Policy page was created for precicely this reason. If a person doesn't read the deletion policy, they shouldn't be able to post to VfD--see the gigantic link at the top of the page. -- Mattworld 01:47, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * In addition, Onebyone's compromise is fine. -- Mattworld 02:19, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * In a perfect world, everyone would read the Deletion policy from top to bottom, everyone would read the EULA before clicking "I agree" when installing software and everyone would read the fine print on warranty cards. It's a rare thing. :)  And to be honest, Deletion_policy is a bewildering page for newbies. Deletion_policy alone is dizzying, with different categories, subpages, some capitalized, some not, what is cleanup?, etc... I'm not even sure how Cleanup works or why I should use it rather than VfD. So in the interests of practicality, the most basic info about how to use VfD should be on, well, the VfD page. I would argue it's quite un-Wiki to expect people to read 2,000 words, or six pages of typewritten text, before learning how to operate VfD.  (That's what it came to after pasting Deletion policy into MS Word and doing Word count). Fuzheado 03:32, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a link to Boilerplate anyway? It's a lot easier to maintain changes and multiple "approved" versions if the text is kept only in the "approved" place that boilerplate lives. If it's helpful to have the boilerplate accessible from VfD, add it to the second list of links (which includes the admin guidelines and so on). Problem solved? I will say that I'm a bit bemused by this argument, since I own a mouse and thus I couldn't care less that there's a screen of administrivia at the top of the page ;-p Onebyone 00:46, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If everyone got less stressed about articles being mislisted then it wouldn't matter if newbies listed something on the wrong subpage/ for the wrong reason/ without the boilerplate notice. Let people list stuff. Deal with it when they do. Stop seeing the lack of perfection in VfD as being some sort of sign that the whole project is doomed to failure. It isn't the end of the world if someone hasn't read the 2000 word policy before they list something.

Understanding it before they delete something would be a good thing though. :) Angela 04:28, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It's a bit contradictory to tell people in Wikipedia to be bold but when it comes to VfD, "Read this 2,000 word document before operating this page."  It would be nice, but it's not mandatory. Fuzheado 04:46, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen over the past couple of days the biggest problem is the number of pages being listed on VfD with no boilerplate text added to the article. This lack of notification is extremely rude and unfair to the author(s) of pages being voted on. Bmills 13:18, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have replaced the boilerplate reminder in, I hope, a more acceptable form. As a simple matter of pragmatics, when it was removed the number of times a VfD tag was not added to a candidate article increased dramatically. VfD tags on articles are very important if an author is to be given a fair chance of defending her work in a deletion discussion. To omit or remove VfD tags is duplicitous. Anjouli 21:23, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am removing the SPITBOL article from VfD. SPITBOL has existed since the 1970s and is of some minor interest in the history of programming languages. There is no way that it should have been put on the list. If anyone disagrees they can put it back (but they'd better give an extremely good reason, not just a bureaucratic one). -- Derek Ross 18:01, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Agree vehemently. (No, I didn't write the article). Given that Wikipedia is fairly strong on computer science topics, SPITBOL certainly deserves a mention, and the article is OK. The statements in it about the perception of SNOBOL4 are certainly correct. I can't imagine why anyone would want to remove this article. (I tried without success to find the original reference and explanation in the page history). Dpbsmith 23:36, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When all you got is a hammer, everything thing looks like a nail!
This has got to the most pathetic excuse for a voting script that I have seen on a website in a long time. Are you guys that desperate for JAVA programmers?--Mr-Natural-Health


 * Actually, we once had a dedicated voting script, but it was removed a couple of years back. If you'd like to suggest re-adding it, see bug reports. Better, volunteer to write it yourself: see wikitech-l. Martin 17:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ha, ... Hah, Ha--I nolonger vote here because the process is obviously poorly designed, too time consuming, and highly likely to fail for obvious reasons.--Mr-Natural-Health 21:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * If you will not participate in our democracy, you should not have hopes to change it. --cprompt 01:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Soft" deletion?
Is there a way to blank an article so that the history is preserved, but it registers as a nonexistent page for linking purposes? This seems to be the way to go for many sub-stubs, such as Direct Marketing Association. The information on that page isn't intrinsically bad and should be available to later contributors. Granted, it needs careful treatment to avoid POV, but it shouldn't be wiped off the face of the wiki. -Smack 00:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Not yet but see Deletion management redesign. Angela. 00:30, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Reminder
Just a reminder that long discussions can be moved to /Delete subpages as explained at Archived delete debates and when a page is redirected, it can be delisted from VfD, and put at Redirects for deletion if it is likely to still need deletion. I just cut the page down from, what is possibly a record, 109kb to a much more manageable, though still not ideal, 62kb. It would be good if, rather than just commenting, people thought about whether their comments would be best elsewhere (ie - subpage or delete page) before making them. TIA. Angela. 03:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I might point out that over a 28 Kbit modem (which is still the standard in MUCH of the world) uploading a 100 Kbyte page takes something like a full minute. As does fixing it after every single edit conflict.  This is not good for some users (not including myself, I have a 31337 OC-3 out to the net here at school).  -- Pakaran 03:27, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is it unfair and moronic to suggest that, generally, pages younger than a week should not be listed? If it isn't, I'd like to suggest that. BL 05:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "unfair and moronic", no. But if you find a page that needs deleting, what you do with it for a week? There's the risk of it being lost and forgotten about. Maybe if there was a page for pages to be listed on VfD next week if they aren't improved by then page, that could work. Kind of like cleanup, but with a more definite timescales and more of a desire for the page to be deleted. Angela. 01:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, thats the point. If the page is totally new, it is very likely that it is totally different a week later than what it was when it was created. Ergo, the reason for listing it in the first place hopefully has disappeared. Also, some people (like me) routineously vote against deletion on the ground that the article in question hasn't been given enough time. Meaning that the practice of listing entierly new pages ultimately only waste time, imho. BL 03:42, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about not listing pages younger than a week, but I have noticed a tendency to list pages which are only an hour old, which is not giving authors any chance at all to write a decent article -- I sometimes spend over an hour between saves myself! I'd suggest not considering deleting articles less than 3 days old, recognising that some Wikipedians have lives and may have to attend to them for a while! Arwel 12:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Better navigation
Why not make each entry for article to be deleted a sub-section so that it shows up on the Table-of-Contents ? Currently the TOC only has the date names which serve maybe less than half the purpose of navigation. Lets have the round bullets only for discussions of the article and " = = = " for article-line. Jay 09:24, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * This has been suggested before, but reformatting VfD has been a contentious issue. If you feel strongly about it, you could take a copy of a recent version of the VfD page and convert it to your suggested format on a personal subpage, so that people can evaluate it without affecting the day-to-day operation of VfD. -- Cyan 13:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It's been suggested at least three times. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive 3. Angela. 01:38, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged...
See Talk:Atlas Shrugged/Delete

Double BR
Why is there a double  in the boilerplate? Seems to add too much space between the notice at the top of the article. Fuzheado 11:52, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Splitting into subsections
Don't know if this has been suggested before, but I think it would be helpful to split the dated sections in VfD into subsections by topic. It would make it easier to navigate to a particular topic, and for those of us who use section editing and whose browsers don't search within forms, it would be much easier to find the desired topic in the edit box. I'm willing to split up the existing page, unless there are objections. Tualha 13:04, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Although I kinda like the idea myself, this issue has come up in the past. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for_deletion/archive 3 subtopic "Proposal to change the Votes for Deletion articles format" - Anthropos 14:58, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I wonder if the topic of "Make editing a section include all subsections" has come up? Probably has. It seems logical... Tualha 19:06, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It has. Eloquence said he's work on it I believe. Angela. 21:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * How about arranging the sub-sections alphabetically? eg A-M/N-Z for the first split, then split each of those as become necessary. That would be more logical and navigable than the current "system". Phil 08:20, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * I find the current subsections a bit of an irritant. Now you not only need to know what day an article was listed, but what part of the day before you can go there from the TOC. Maybe the page should be turned upside down so that new additions are made at the top? And I agree with Phil; subheadings, if they have to be there, should be alphabetical. Bmills 12:07, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's a good idea to ask people to list at the top, simply because those who use the page infrequently won't do it. Look at VfU, where things are meant to be listed in particular order under correct sections. About half the listings start off in the wrong place. I think the alphabetical order within a particular day could work though, as long as people don't get too stressed when things are added out of order, which they will be.  Angela. 12:36, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * One way or another, personally I find the current subsections less than useless. They just make the TOC longer. Adding at the top works well on Cleanup. Bmills 12:43, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I hadn't though about Cleanup. You're right, it does work there, and it is easier to add at the top on that page. Perhaps it's worth trialling it for a week or two to see how it goes. Angela. 12:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It would look like this: User:Bmills/Votes for deletion Bmills 13:08, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

VfD not being posted properly.
I notice a lot of people who post Votes for Deletion do so without putting a "delete" notice on the page, which is very unfair to the page's author.

Any suggestions how we can police this? Anjouli 02:39, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely. That is why I asked that the boilerplate be added to the top of VfD....yet, I am absent-minded enough to forget to place the message atop articles I nominate. I always mean to do it, but sometimes I forget. I am a little forgetful. It is part of my charm and part of my trouble! Alas. Kingturtle 02:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Take it up with The Cunctator. RickK 07:36, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I suggest it is "policed" in the same way that any additions to an article are "policed". If you see an article without the notice, add it. You can't expect people to be perfect and always remember to add the notice. A huge number of people look at the articles listed on VfD so surely one of them is going to notice the lack of the message. I don't think it's something you need to start getting overly worried about. A few months ago there was no requirement to add such a notice anyway, so whilst it is an excellent idea to add it, it isn't the end of the world when someone forgets. Angela. 07:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Ditto Angela - just add the notice. If the fact that the submitter did not put the notice on the page annoys you (I know it annoys the hell out of me when I don't see it), just move the listed page to the section corresponding to the date you put the notice on the page. You could also leave a short reminder on the submitter's talk page that adding the notice is considered to be good manners. --mav 09:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent suggestion. Now watch me get flamed the first time I move a block to a different date :) Anjouli 13:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Agree it's an excellent suggestion. IMO it should be standard practice. I've seen it done several times, including by a sysop who was otherwise about to delete the article, and I haven't seen any flame wars result yet. It's a reasonable thing to do and avoids wasting time discussing undeletion later. Andrewa 09:33, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Alas, adding the VfD notice to articles has been an obsession of mine, simply because I'm a bit too busy right now to be involved with full article writing and it's an easy thing to do. Fuzheado 11:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Deleting vs. Redirecting
Has this debate been had before? I just came across a mess with the Lists of Linux User Groups. I made many of them redirects as some of them actually show up on google. What is the problem with making some articles redirects, instead of deleting them? Obviously, not all articles deserve to be made redirects, but if it helps someone find the more general, accurate, etc. topic, then why not? Dori | Talk 16:52, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * We strongly encourage the creation of redirects rather than listing pages for deletion, whereever appropriate. Thank you, Dori, for helping make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Martin 22:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I hate this page
I hate this page. It's poorly organized, so it's really hard to find an article whose impending deletion I want to read or comment about. Also, I think too much time is wasted debating the yes/no question of deletion, which could be better spent improving the page or cutting and pasting its contents to another page. Besides, if no one has the guts to turn it into a blank page, it's probably good enough to keep. --Uncle Ed 19:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Please contact me.." header
I have three times removed a bit of boilerplate at the top that said (roughly) "If a vote is close, please contact the following users.." for the reason that if a user is interested in votes for deletion s/he should read the votes for deletion page for themselves.. rather than being summoned like some sort of super-user. However on the two previous occasions one person on that list has reverted me (without a summary comment, and whilst marking the edit as minor when it clearly isnt) without explaining why I am wrong here. Please be co-operative when you have a different view, I am trying to be. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just put my name on there (before reading this). I was trying to discuss it on Conflicts between users under "lir", but only one guy wanted to talk about it. He is a great guy, but I didn't feel convinced not to put my name on it. If you guys wanna convince me why not, I'll remove it. Otherwise, I'd like to be notified of close votes! I mean, I already have VfD on my watchlist. Jack 12:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for adding your name when the list was there. I was grumbling about the list being re-added (by Lir) in the first place. I don't think the list is necessary - you already have VfD on your watchlist thus you know what the hot topics are on this page. What benefit does anyone get, therefore, by having your name, and others, take up screen real estate at the top of a page that is probably loaded thousands of times a day? If want to know about more votes than just deletion votes the appropiate page is List of ongoing votes.
 * Votes for deletion is a very long list. If somebody feels it is an emergency (their favorite article is endangered, etc...) they should be able to call me 911 to the rescue. And if I vote against them, so be it. At least I (they, the wikipedia, the average reader, we all benifit from a sound vote) had the chance. My preference is actually that we be notified of every vote, for anything anywhere, every time. I think that would help keep decisions from being rammed thru before I (you, whoever) know it. Jack 14:40, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Well I am sure its a pretty rare day when someone's favourite article gets deleted (favourite articles are usually good articles :-). But if for some reason over the five day window of voting the wrong decision is made (a pretty rare event in my experience), then we have the fallback of Votes for undeletion. This talk of "911" - rescuing innocent little articles from the gnashing jaws of the unstoppable VfD juggonaut - is overestimating the importance of VfD. Don't worry about it. If you miss a vote, don't worry, someone else will have seen it, and the collective process works. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:30, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * hehe, yeah I know its an exaduration. But I want to be able to vote early and often. This list seems like a way to accomadate that, Rather than focusing on my reasons (which I think are clear) for wanting to be there (particularly if someone else is!), what are your reasons against it? I want to be a super-user! :D Jack 15:48, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * This page is accessed a lot and the page is too big as it is - I want to minimize unnecessary data transfer... but more importantly than that... I don't want to have the scroll through the same boilerplate each time I load the page... I want to go straight the delete debates. I'd like all the instructions and other boilerplate to be on another page.. I managed to get this instituted for a while... but it has all crept back over the last month or two. The "Please Contact me..." line is of minimal use to me, and most other users, and I think the small improvement (in terms of saving space and screen clarity) for LOTS of users outweighs the advantage for a FEW users (who may occasionally be contacted about a delete debate they might have otherwise missed). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:18, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * So the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few eh? Except that my concerns (and theoretically the concerns of Lir and.. the other guy) are that ALL will benifit from our sage wisdom in times of a close vote crisis. I know you don't share my terror of votes gone awry, but it canhappen. I only became interested in VfD when something I had edited (one of the first things I edited on the wiki) was deleted right before my eyes, after a vote I probably could have influenced. Anyways.... I say either we leave it up there (lir seems to be an edit warrior, so I assume they will take care of that part) or else we remove all that boilerplate stuff to talk, or some other page, as you'd prefer. I don't like to have a compromise where everybody loses, which seems to the case w the current situation. Jack 21:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Voting Extension
It would seem only fair to give those votes which were underway during the outage a couple of days of extra grace before their votes are finalised. Comments? -- Finlay McWalter 20:21, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. I would suggest that the items listed on the 20th and 21st be left for seven days to make up for the two lost days, and the things listed on the 22nd be left for at least six days. Angela. 23:54, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. RickK 01:30, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * And another day for the latest outages? VfD is only 43kb at the moment, so I think it can handle it. Some of them seem to be undisputed anyway, so those could go earlier if VfD does get too large. Angela. 05:06, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Wasn't this outage two days? -- Finlay McWalter 11:46, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)