Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Archive 1

Category structure
Please review the proposed categories at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beta. At present they are sorted by type, topic, and place. In addition, through the existing VfD/TfD/CfD process, we sort currently deletions by namespace (partially) and by date. These are both useful structures. At one time they sufficiently subdivided deletion debates, but this is no longer the case. However, we certainly shouldn't do away with them. So perhaps an ideal categorization system would sort nominations in five ways:
 * 1)  By namespace (Article, Template, Category, other): mostly already in place, non-contentious.
 * 2)  By date: already in place within each system, presumably non-contentious.
 * 3)  By type: certain kinds of content -- people, schools, websites, etc. -- turn up commonly enough in deletion debates to merit special categories.  Most such types are already receiving special attention, in the form of efforts at establishing bodies of precedent (such as Websites).
 * 4)  By topic: The core of the categorized-deletion proposal, this would give editors with an interest in a specific area of coverage the opportunity to participate in relevant deletion discussions, without trudging through the wasteland of VfD.  However, we need clear criteria for what does and doesn't merit a topical category.
 * 5)  By place:  Really a specialized form of "by topic."  There are lots of regional Wikipedian communities and projects, and lots of interest in improving Wikipedia coverage of country/region X.  Thus it makes sense to categorize nominations by place whenever possible.  Personally, I would favor creating categories for any country or US state that ever has related content on VfD (which is to say, pretty much every country and US state).

How does this basic structure seem? Is it adequate? Does it go too far? -- Visviva 09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Could also have By Language (I've often seen "this seams to be Portuguese" or Spanish, etc... -Mariano 15:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We could, but for the most part I don't think they would get enough traffic to be worthwhile. Actually, most of those items come to VfD from Pages needing translation.  It would certainly be nice if Pages needing translation was categorized by language... -- Visviva 05:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Unified deletion
If we're going to categorize deletions, it makes sense to consider all different types of content for deletion, including categories and templates as well as articles. Doesn't it? What about images and other media? Could image deletions be categorized as well, or should they be kept separate as they are at present? And what about redirects? RfD is so small, maybe we should just leave it alone.

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to leave out images and redirects, while including templates and categories. Templates and categories, like articles, need to have some clear content, some assertion of encyclopedic merit, or they are candidates for speedy deletion. That doesn't seem to apply to images and redirects (which by their nature have no content). Thus, trying to categorize IfD and RfD is probably much more trouble than it's worth. Thoughts? -- Visviva 09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Lists and categories
Categorized deletion won't work unless there are well-maintained lists to go along with it. I gather than the closest thing to a dynamic list on Wikipedia is Special:Whatlinkshere, which unfortunately is pretty lame. What we really need (I think) are transcluded topical lists for each category, containing all present (and perhaps past) deletions in that category. Creating such lists is easy. How can we ensure that these lists are kept up to date? -- Visviva 09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now created a test list, although all but one item on it is already closed. See Korea-related deletions.  I would create a list about a more active topic, but in the present climate I'm afraid it would be deleted.  At least this area is one where I am genuinely active and have already been maintaining a deletion list.  Thus, I hope no one will accuse me of trying to make a disruptive point. -- Visviva 12:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem
How do you prevent someone deliberately putting a VFD into an inappropriate category so that they can get the result they want by deliberately dis-including knowledgable editors. This is particularly an issue on controversial areas - e.g. Abuse of Christians by Islam being put into the Christianity section so that it is kept by editors interested in Christianity, rather than the Islam section. Or someone moving a VFD for Jesus as a buddhist into the Buddhism section to get it kept. Or someone putting Admins banned from voting into the obscure games and geographical locations section to keep it as Admins are unlikely to be too concerned about that section. ( ! | ? | * ) 20:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You also have the converse problem of POV warriors patrolling their subject area, but more normal editors not paying so much attention to them. Both these issues need resolving. ( ! | ? | * ) 20:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good points. At present there is only a single proposed "Religion and philosophy" category in  Beta.  However, if there were separate Islam and Christianity categories, obviously an article like "Abuse of Christians by Islam" would belong in both.  Of course, even in good faith relevant categories will be left out by the nominator.  Let's see -- I think we have three possible problems here, let's go through them:
 * 1. Accidental or deliberate omission of deletions from categories in which they belong.  This is inevitable to some extent.
 * Possible solutions: Have standard one-line templates (implemented using subst) so that people reading the debate can quickly see in what categories it has been placed, by who, and when.  Anyone visiting a debate can place it in a category they consider appropriate, by adding the appropriate template as a "Comment" line.  Have a category "Deletions needing sorting" (possibly identical with the main deletion category), which could be regularly patrolled by deletion nuts such as ourselves.  (That would be the long-term purpose of this WikiProject, in fact.)
 * 2. Deliberate misplacement of deletions in inappropriate cats, either as spam or in an effort to obscure debate. This is highly likely with problem contributors, of which we have quite a few.
 * Possible solutions: The solution to vandalistic placements is the same as the solution to any vandalism -- revert.  In the event that this becomes too problematic (as when revert wars develop with multiple editors on both sides),  just leaving the debate in inappropriate categories would not do very much harm.  Putting a deletion in an obscure category, in an effort to hide it from debate, is unlikely to be successful.  As long as we keep a central list (whether in the form of the present VfD daily log, or as a non-transcluded list), it should be easy to spot such problems.  Since any user can add the deletion to a new category, the placement problem can be solved the instant it is noticed.  (That's the Wiki way!)
 * 3. POV warriors are always going to pay more attention to deletion than the rest of us, because it gives them exactly the kind of contentious debate they get off on.
 * Possible solutions: That's already a serious problem with the current VfD community (present company excluded).  Average editors with an interest in topic X are much more likely to pay attention to a short topical list of deletions than they are to sift through the nearly-100 daily entries on the VfD log.  That's why topical deletion lists are cropping up all over (even though they're a pain to maintain), and have even been included on the WikiProject template.  I believe that sorted deletion would actually increase the percentage of good-faith voters on VfD.  -- Visviva 11:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Have a category "Deletions needing sorting" (possibly identical with the main deletion category), which could be regularly patrolled by deletion nuts such as ourselves. (That would be the long-term purpose of this WikiProject, in fact.)"
 * I think with that you run the risk of instruction creep, in that this requires somebody to actively maintain and sort entries, thus making more work to go into processing a VfD nomination. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 04:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's a large amount of work. I've been sorting VfDs into a rather complicated schema for about 2 weeks now, and I find that I can generally sort all 100-plus daily entries in less than an hour (imperfectly, to be sure).  That said, I think Radiant's suggestion below is probably best: let deletions be sorted at nomination into 5-10 basic categories, and leave any additional sorting up to interested editors.   -- Visviva 16:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Updates
I've now plowed through several hundred deletion debates and deletion-ready articles, as I have now finished the 4th day of the 10-day survey recorded at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beta. Between the bad articles and the bad-faith nominations, I'm about ready for a chat with Ralph on the porcelain telephone. :-(

However, I have gotten some more perspective on the problems of deletion sorting. Here are some issues I'm thinking over, regarding the draft structure at /Blank:

-- Visviva 13:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorting fiction/webfiction/Tv/film is difficult, especially since deletion-ready articles often don't provide enough information to distinguish them. An umbrella category would help.  (Maybe "Popular culture", rather than the current "Arts"?).
 * Trying to sort neologisms from other words is a waste of time.
 * Discussions on CfD and TfD (and for that matter RfD and IfD) cannot be included at present. They are not placed on subpages, so we can't transclude or categorize them.  Pity.  I've stopped surveying them for now.
 * We should endeavor to keep the category structure no more than two levels deep, for ease of use and maintenance.

Too complicated
I think this idea has merit, but the current system of dozens of categories is too complicated. Nominators wouldn't be aware of which categories existed, and would frequently misfile a nomination. Voters would have to check dozens of lists to find the topics they want. If I may suggest something else... how about creating between five and ten categories total (like we do on WP:RFC). E.g. "religion", "fiction", "people" etc. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you definitely have a point. Ideally I'd like to see a mix of both approaches.  Perhaps we could have five-or-so main categories -- maybe arts & culture, science, geography, internet -- with nominators expected to place their nomination in one.  Sorting into more precise categories and transcluded lists could be done (or not done) by other editors, as the spirit moved them.  How does that sound? -- Visviva 06:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am of the belief that: There should still be a comprehensive (ie. day-by-day account) list of VfD to which nominators post their VfD. It should be made easy for someone to nominate an article if they can back it up. Beyond that it should fall to an admin chore or interested editor (like myself) to sort them. Categories should be simple and obvious (ie. music, people). Relevant VfD should be posted on all active notice boards (ie. Canada Notice Board and/or like so). VfD should also be sorted according to their justification (ie. nn, vanity, etc.).    -maclean25 05:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Too complicated indeed, at least in its current form. This would work as an adjuct to another deletion system for those who wish to optionally participate.  However, I do not think this should be considered in any way as a primary replacement for AfD.  Supplement, Pure wiki or Uncontested_deletion?, sounds great.  &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 07:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Utilize noticeboards
How about putting a deletion entry at a related noticeboard? This seems to be quite natural, as Japanese Wikipedians' notice board, which I frequent, lists deletion votes. -- Taku 07:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I've added a note to most of the relevant boards. If you notice one that I've missed, please feel free to add a note there too as well.  -- Visviva 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Help wanted, etc.
Hi everybody,

I've ended up investing most of my time in maintaining the lists of deletions, and I haven't really had time to work on any other aspects of this project. Meanwhile, VfD keeps getting bigger... So I have a two-part request: 1. If you have an interest in the broader goals of this project, such as categorized deletion (see WikiProject Deletion sorting, please take the lead and formulate something. 2.  If you'd like to help out with the deletion lists, please go to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ready and move as many items as you want to your section (as I have done).  Then sort them out, convert and upload.  The deletions for each closed deletion log will be moved to /Ready, and kept there until they have been uploaded to the appropriate lists.  (note that some of the redlinks are illusory-- please check before removing).

Thanks! -- Visviva 00:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

my change to template:Deletionlist
I've made a change to Template:Deletionlist to change the line " (name of this list) -- ~ " to " -- ~ " with the intent that users can then copy the line from the topic page and paste straight into the AfD page. This seems to work for places like Australia and Oceania where the first parameter is exactly the same as the page name. It may break for /Music (parameter is music with a lowercase 'm') and will probably break for /Songs and albums where the parameter is "individual songs or albums". Have I made a bad change, or should these parameters all get chased down and fixed to match the pagename? --Scott Davis Talk 07:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Lists of categories
While this is a good idea and I have been tagging the entries for Australia, where could I or other users find a list so that entries in AfD can be tagged. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)