Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Maintenance

/Village pump: a relevant discussion archived from the Village pump:. &bull; Benc &bull; 08:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Signing de-inclusions
Should we recommend that de-inclusions be signed by whomever performed them? It adds a little more clutter, but it would help keep the paper trail alive (which is a good thing). &bull; Benc &bull; 09:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

General comments
I like this proposal quite a lot. And your rule of thumb is exactly the rule I've used when I made those recommendations myself. I would recommend pulling the paragraph about copying the Tally to a sub-page though. A long vote is hard enough to track without having to worry that the tally sub-page might now be out of synch with the discussion page. It just seems too difficult to maintain. Thnaks. Rossami 16:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I figured you would &mdash; much of it is based off of what you've been doing already. :-) &bull; Benc &bull; 17:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This seems like a very sensible proposal. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 16:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can add my vote of approval, too. This is a good proposal and some people have started using it on VfD directly. Are there any objections to it becoming an official part of VfD policy (though I'm obviously not in a position to decide what's official)? --Ardonik.talk* 18:47, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Removed from page

 * Removed as suggested by Rossami; this truly would make maintenance more difficult. No need to juggle multiple pages. &bull; Benc &bull; 16:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Optional: if someone has tallied the votes and you'd like to include it on the main page, move the tally from the discussion itself to a subpage, e.g. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PageName/Tally. Then, include the tally on both the discussion itself and on the main page, using something like this:

Here's an idea: instead of creating a sub-subpage, move the discussion to the subpage's talk page and replace the subpage with the tally. It's not like VfD subpage talkpages get used for anything else, except the occasional misplaced vote. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's actually what I meant when I raised my concern. Anything that splits the tally away from the discussion - whether to the Talk page, to a sub-page or onto the main VfD page - creates risk that the tally will drift out of synch with the discussion.  Shoot, even the recap tables at the top of the discussion thread are risky.  If a vote must have a tally, I think we need to keep it in the same edit space as the comments. Rossami 02:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Renominations alternative procedure
Uncle G's alternative procedure is probably easier but won't it also break all the links to the original discussion? Now the old links will point to the new discussion. In some cases, it may create confusion - for example, if I link to an old discussion as an example or precedent on a decision, a research technique or an RFC about an abusive participant. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

conversion to Guideline ( no longer official policy )
Was the conversion of the contents of this page from an Official Policy to a Guideline something that was discussed elsewhere rather than on this page? Courtland 17:28, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
 * I don't think this page was ever "official" policy. It was briefly tagged that way but the "guideline" tag is probably a closer description to the truth.  In a perfect world, we would merge and redirect this page to WP:GVFD but that page is already huge.  Rossami (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So what you're telling me is that the people who are going around changing things from policy to guideline are doing the right thing (being bold) because no one really knows what is policy and what is guideline anyway? Courtland 22:45, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
 * That's the wiki way. Each of us must be bold and do the best we can and trust that the community is smarter than any of us individually.  Mistakes get corrected remarkably quickly in most cases.  Rossami (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)