Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
Archive
Archives


Contents

Category structure

Please review the proposed categories at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. Ëvilphoenix 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 Wikipedia: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:

  • 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.

-- Visviva 13:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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_>|< 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. ∴ here…♠ 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting#Goals, please take the lead and formulate something. 2. If you'd like to help out with the deletion lists, please go to Wikipedia: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)


Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

People-related deletion sorting pages

Politics and Politicians

Back in June 2007, User:Pb30 converted Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians to a redirect pointing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics. This was done no doubt with the best of intentions. However, it had the unfortunate side effect of transcluding the Politics deletion sorting onto the Biography deletion sorting page. As a remedy, I have reversed Pb30's action and subsequently transcluded the Politicians page into the Politics page ... which will have the effect that Pb30 might have been trying to achieve, that being a single page view of both Politics and Politicians. Hopefully this action will meet with general acceptance. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Business and Businesspeople

I've also found that back in August 2006, User:Visviva did a similar thing, converting Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople to a redirect pointing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business. I have, like the situation above, reverted this back so the people and topic are separated. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Separating people from topics makes sense. Modifications to the lists should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Compact#People and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting#List changes. John Vandenberg 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of seperation between people and other topics within the Business domain, but I would say that people account for small fraction (less than 5%) of Business deletions. I would say this sub-categorisation is unnessary.--Gavin Collins 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • When I deletion sort a business person, I have been choosing "People" rather than "Business" for business people. Im interested to hear how others have treated business people. A persons potential notability is usually more diverse than that of a company. Usually, a business person has done many other things in their life as well. Business people are assessed according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) whereas businesses fall into Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). John Vandenberg 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Your point is valid, but the creation of one more delsort category should not be done lightly; would it not be better only to create one if the statistics justified it? --Gavin Collins 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting "Academic journals, societies and conferences" page

On behalf of WP Academic Journals, I'd like to request a delsort page entitled "Academic journals, societies and conferences" which would be proposed to cover academic journals, academic publishers, learned societies, academic conferences, academic awards and related topics. The past month's record at the project's deletion page would seem to indicate that sufficient traffic exists in this subject area. The topic would be distinct from the existing "Academics and educators" page. Thanks, Espresso Addict 00:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this warrants a delsort page, but I am also as a member of that project so it would be good if other delsort regulars take a look. Recent discussion on the project talk page can be found at WP:AJ#Update on monitoring deletion. John Vandenberg 15:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not a delsort regular at this moment, but I think it would be a good idea. --Lquilter (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine by me, only concern is the name is a bit long -- pb30<talk> 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"Academic topics"? Might confuse with Academics, which is biographical? --Lquilter (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the problem is distinguishing it clearly from the existing "Academics and Educators", without going overboard on the length. "Academic publishing", perhaps? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
there would be a point in having on are journals magazines and newspapers in general--or is there is one, and I dont know about it.? DGG (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont think that a delsort list has skipped your attention DGG. A "Publications" (history) was merged with Lit. in 2006, as it was being used for anything that was related to publishing (books, comics, etc); it could be re-opened with a different focus. Alternatively, "Periodicals" would be a nice delsort list, as it does cover a number of wikiprojects. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be against including academic journals in with publications in general, as the expertise to deal with articles on, say, comics or consumer magazines is very different from that needed to deal with articles on academic journals. Also, it would be nice to cover academic societies & conferences too, as in practice these seem to be more often borderline than publications. This item has been on the request list since October with no opposition to the basic suggestion -- could we have a trial run of something, and see if it works? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Since this request has been made, close to eight months ago, we've been maintaining a de facto deletion sorting page that has now included 50 AfDs. (The format is nonstandard but that's easy enough to change.) Any chance of making this official? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting "Did you know" page

I am one of the DYK admin participants. The Did you know gives a five day review of new articles that is open to many reviewers and then lists appropriate new articles on the Main Page after one or more administrators agrees with the assessment that the article is one of Wikipedia's best new articles. Those involved in the DYK project have knowledge of these articles from their review and interest in these articles since these articles have appeared on the Main Page based on the decisions by the DYK project. Some of these DYK articles are listed then deleted at AfD without the input of the DYK project members, largely because the DYK project remains unaware that such articles have been listed for deletion. It is important that the DYK members be made aware of an ongoing AfD for a DYK article so that either DYK can change its practices or provide input regarding why the article was considered by DYK to be one of Wikipedia's best new articles. For this, please create Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Did You Know as a deletion sorting page for the DYK project. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Radio Stations

Similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television, I think myself and my fellow members of WP:WPRS would benefit from a way to be notified of the upcoming deletion of a radio station-related article. Often, this is a matter of the notability of a particular station, and with thousands of radio station articles, its very difficult to go through and find these stubs before they are gone. Thanks for your consideration. JPG-GR 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of Radio related Afds, and often thought that we need a deletion list for them. I think a new list should be broader than "Radio Stations", including radio programs and maybe even radio hosts. Can you compile a list of recent Radio related Afds? John Vandenberg 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
An assortment from the last week or so (disclaimer: this is just a list, not necessary a list of debates I support or oppose): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLCM (Lancaster), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIMI-FM, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRFH, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Hochman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of amateur radio organizations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headbangers Ball Ireland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roadkill cafe. JPG-GR 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like things havent changed - lots of junk articles are being created and nominated for deletion, and the occasional decent articles is also ending up there. Can you think of a better delsort page name, in order to encompass all of these radio related topics ? John Vandenberg 17:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Anything would be fine, I'm sure. I just copied the name from the similar page for WP:TVS. JPG-GR 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Radio ? John Vandenberg 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha, works for me. :) JPG-GR 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Any update on this? Seen a couple radio related AfD's and can't find a good place to put them. -- pb30<talk> 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I created it, since there don't seem to be any objections. the wub "?!" 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorting vs Categorisation

This discussion has probably been aired before, but why can't AfD Categories be expanded, thereby avoiding the need to manually tag (or semi-automated tag) each AfD debate individually? It would seem to me that keeping an archive of the debates within these categories would be easier as well. --Gavin Collins 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Archive2#Wikipedia:AfD categories and User talk:Jayvdb#Note: This debate has been included in the.... Its been a while since it was discussed so it doesnt hurt to revisit this. John Vandenberg 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition to those articles, I also read a few from the archive such as "Too Complicated", and it sort of answers my question why this project has not gone down the route of creating a large range of categories. I can see the difficulties with this proposal; having loads of categories would make drawing up an AfD realy tricky as you would have to select one from a very long list. Having said that, the current category coding struture is not very user friendly (O and F are the only ones I can remember). However, categories are so much more efficient than the delsort pages, which I could argue are just glorified lists at the end of the day, and as such are difficult to manage; the wubbot sounds like it is a really complex bit of programing to get the current system to work. If categories became the primary method of sorting, the way I would see it working is that even if 50% of all nominators left their category blank, it would be easier to correcly categorise them than having to tag every article and log it on the appropriate delsort page. I am probably not making myself understood here; does anyone see where I am coming from? --Gavin Collins 21:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be two major problems with the way the current categories work. First, AfD nominators are often the least useful people to fill in the category. A significant proportion of current AfDs have a few word non-specific deletion reason ("NN", "NN bio"), and I suspect those nominators would never be persuaded to fill in detailed categories with care. Some good-faith nominators simply don't understand why the article is notable and therefore which category it should be filed in, and often articles of marginal notability turn out to have a relevance that's unclear at the outset. And that's ignoring those small proportion of bad-faith nominators who might deliberately put the item in the incorrect category in the hope it was overlooked.
Second, one can't watch a category. Perhaps something like the current prod summary could be used to generate a watchable list of items in a particular category? Espresso Addict 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your two points, but even if none of the nominators fill in the category, at least 100% of all AfD's are categorised, if only because they fall into into one category, such as Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted). You make a good technical point that categories cannot be watched, but I suggest to you that lists and statistics could more easily be drawn from them more easily. The point I am making here here is that without categorisation, too many articles fall between stools, and do not get sorted at all. My proposal is therefore as follows:
  • Expand the list of deletion categories to cover the most used categories (does anyone have statistics to indicate which categories are the largest?);
  • Use the categories as the source for updating automated delsort lists (to enable them to be watched), such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion;
  • Redirect our energies into sorting the uncategorised AfD's, so that the default or catch all category is kept to a minimum.
Note that this approach would one logical advantage: 100% of all AfD's would be categorised even if that category were to be called "uncategorised" .Does anyone follow my drift? --Gavin Collins 09:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages/Edit wars and deletions

How could Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages/Edit wars and deletions be made into a better deletion-sorting/-notification list? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 08:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gambling vs. Games

On the WikiProject Gambling page, there is a suggestion for creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Gambling. Personally, I think this would be too narrow a DelSort page, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games should rather be created as a more useful page, with 'topic' cross-reference to Gambling and other WikiProjects not otherwise served by Game-related DelSort pages. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree as there is not enough delsort traffic through Deletion sorting/Games to justify a new page, even though this page could include sports, video, desktop and role-playing games. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update on personal deletion notification data page

FYI: The page User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals has evolved and I've come up with a "3rd generation" table format that is working nicely. See User:Ceyockey/Notifying_WikiProjects_of_Deletion_Proposals#An_alternate_table_format. The aim of this format is to a) provide a link to where deletion-nomination notifications should be placed for each WikiProject, b) provide a quick-copy banner for placement on pages as they are listed on notification pages if they do not already have such a banner and c)providing some notion of notification traffic through the "proper" channel and whether that channel is endorsed by the WikiProject. I've come to think that doing both - ensuring proper notification and affixing a wikiproject banner - is the best minimum course of action to take on "endangered" articles. I'm slowly moving things into the new table format as I do Deletion Sorting on PRODs and AFDs. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulk moving of comic characters to Wikipedia Annex

WP:NOTE now says that fancruft should be moved to Wikipedia Annex. This is actually part of Wikia, where Jimbo monetizes fancruft. Is it time to start mass transwiki efforts for minor comics characters? --John Nagle (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE says nothing of the sort. there are some proposals to that effect at various places. At this point, anyone doing mass anything without prior consensus is likely to be considered as disrupting the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can transwiki an article at any time, regardless if it gets deleted on Wikipedia or not. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I see the confusion. Nagle is thinking of WP:FICT, not WP:NOTE. Like I said, anyone can transwiki, but deletion discussions are another thing, and like DGG says, would need discussion before hand. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, meant WP:FICT. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
And I agree with Ned that anyone who wishes to copy material to another WMF or other free wiki is always welcome to do so, as far as WP is concerned. DGG (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Is it possible to add WP:IFD to this project? I notice some images have "project tags" on their talk pages. Flibirigit (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well on our hockey page, we put any deletion type on it. I don't know if we are meant to but I have been doing it on my own for a few months now. -Djsasso (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Contemporary music subjects

Because of the highly specialist nature of the pages that WikiProject Contemporary music focuses on, and because there are relatively few of them going up for discussion at any one time it would be very helpful to have this lists. Many of these pages are quite academic (all sources from academic journals for instance) and it would be hard for an average Wikipedian to judge the notability of the subject or the accuracy of the content. (One way to judge what falls within “Contemporary music subjects” would be to just look for any article going up for deletion which is tagged with Template:Contemporary music.) Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

consistency b/w CFDs & AFDs

I'd like to propose a different kind of deletion sorting: One that would consolidate CFDs that recommend "listify", and AFDs that recommend "categorize". For some time editors at CFD and AFD have noticed that some kinds of topics get bounced around. The Actors who died in their 20s and Category:Actors who died in their 20s is a perfect example. Both are up at the same time at AFD and CFD, respectively. List/articles and categories have different functions and therefore different criteria for keeping or deleting, but it's apparent to many of us who observe both fora that there is not always perfect consistency in outcome, and certainly a lot of editors involved in only one forum and not the other don't "get" the other one, and make comments based on imperfect knowledge. Thoughts? cross-posted @ WT:CFD & WT:AFD & WT:Deletion sorting --Lquilter (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. If their is a potential outcome of a deletion discussion which would affect the jurisdiction of another deletion area (e.g. AfD affecting CfD), both should be notified so their input can be heard. In this case, editors on AfD, unaware of CfD precedents and policies (such as WP:OCAT, which is rarely used in AfD), were constantly recommending categorization for this article despite the fact they were being told that 1) a category existed 2) it was in CfD for consideration of deletion 3) CfD considered it against WP:OCAT to create such categories. Communication is essential and it seems to be lacking between the different areas. I would recommend either a notice board or a category for such deletion discussions which would alert of potential discussions affecting other areas, or both. Redfarmer (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pb30 RfA

I'm up for RfA -- pb30<talk> 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

academic delsorts

whew, it seems like this has gotten busy lately. any thoughts as to why? a few of them that i put in i felt the academic connections mentioned in the article were tenuous, but felt it better to get them on the list so that others could review. is this a shift in approach? --Lquilter (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be just a blip caused by the simultaneous nomination of 11 surgeons associated with CUMC. Which additions did you feel were tenuous? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Create Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Belize

Should a delsort be created for the country of Belize? If one is created, please consider adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Bow Marine Field Station to it. --Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Amateur radio

WikiProject Amateur radio has been tracking amateur radio-related article CSDs and AFDs on its own for a while now, and a deletion sorting list would be helpful. The topic tends to attract the creation of articles about non-notable local organizations, dictionary words, etc. that should be deleted, but it might be hard for someone not familiar with the subject matter to distinguish between a notable international organization that for historical reasons has an unusual name or something that sounds like a dictionary term that really deserves to be expanded into an article on a concept or whose content should instead be merged into another article.--Kharker (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

adjustments to {{topic}} tempaltes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

I've made a few minor adjustments to the {{topic}} templates so that they link to as many categories and projects as they can. I had to create a redirect for Wikiproject Gender Studies because of its capitalization but {{topic|Gender studies}} now links to Category:Gender studies Wikiproject Gender Studies and to Portal:Gender studies. Similarly I reduced {{topic|Sexology and Sexuality}} to {{topic|Sexology}} so taht the category is linked to as well (and it still retains its link to WikiProject Sexology and Sexulaity)--Cailil talk 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought for spinout articles

Contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Museums and Galleries

The Museums WikiProject has gotten off the ground and I'd like to request a page for museums and galleries that may come up for deletion. I don't know that there are many, but there have been a couple recently. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of some of the recent ones ? John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't work out how to make the search in chronological order but here are some that have happened.

2008:

Depends on your definition of recent but these aren't too old and some are significant museums:

There are more '08 ones, some were speedied and/or PRODed. Do you need more? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A list to include these seems warranted, under places of interest perhaps. Ideally we want a list to deal with more than just museums. Libraries, galleries and historical societies are closely related. A similar search for "library" AFDs in 2008 turns up:
I only found one 2008 "gallery" AFD
A search for 2008 "hall" AFD has a few more, but they are mostly dorms; there are a few "hall of fame"
Most of those are resulting in deletion. IMO, there is a need for a new list; all we need is a concise list name that encompasses the majority of these topics. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Museums, galleries and historical societies are definitely within the scope of WP:MUSEUMS which was what I was thinking of when I requested a list. What about 'Cultural Organizations'? This is a term often used to refer to museums/cultural centers/performing arts (ie. Dance Companies)... Could encompass libraries as well -- I wouldn't have an issue transcluding the page onto the project with libraries included, although I'll own up to !voting delete for a number of libraries that appeared to fail WP:ORG for local orgs TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd support this, especially if it were to include libraries; I've seen a reasonable number of museum/library articles go through over the past year without strong participation. "Cultural organisations" seems a bit vague, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Museums and libraries be an acceptable title? If so I'll go ahead and create, since there seems to be a desire for it. the wub "?!" 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about the delay, I get distracted too easily. the wub "?!" 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ships

I'd like to request Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ships be created. Some ship deletions would fall under "Military" and some under "Transportation", but it would be nice to have a central location for ship-related deletions in support of WP:SHIPS. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of some of the recent deletions. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The only ones I'm aware of were Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets and List of Liberty Ships by Hull Number (and several related "sub" pages). For the category, no one at WP:SHIPs, as far as I was able to determine, participated (or even was aware of?) the discussion, and, consequently, the category was deleted. For the Liberty Ship lists I was notified on my talk page, since I was the creator. Perhaps there have been others I'm not aware of, which is why it would be nice to have a "Ships" deletion sorting page. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless a list has a steady flow of nominations, AFDs wont be added to it, nor will people watch it. A list for all "Maritime" related topics might be broad enough to warrant a list. I suggest you keep an eye on AFD and record any AFDs that can be topically grouped together, or hit the archives looking for related AFDs. Aim for at least 5 per month. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cyprus

Please create Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cyprus and add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasis Michael to it. --Eastmain (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and create this soon, unless anyone objects. the wub "?!" 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Done (although not so exactly "soon") the wub "?!" 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

How does this project prevent itself from crossing the line into Wikipedia:Canvassing? --Rtphokie (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer is found in Wikipedia:Canvassing itself. "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive."
Deletion sorting is to improve the quality of the discussion, not to promote a particular outcome. An example I'm very familiar with (because it's how I got started in delsort) is the baseball deletion list. Listing an article there won't get an automatic flurry of keep, nor a flurry of delete, !votes. But it will get input from people who know where to look for sources (including ones not found online), know the applicable policy, are very familiar with similar AfDs.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The question asked was a very valid one, and in fact, this answer simply says (as does the project description itself) that this kind of canvasing is just fine, whereas individuals telling other people that "hey, there may be a deletion diescussion you should go see" is invalid. It's the difference between a phone call and a media broadcast. It's still telling people to come and delete or save articles. For the philosophical Deletionist (who are very familiar with AfDs indeed) this is a tool to use to find articles to delete through Piling On and creating consensus. And "Telling people where to look" is simply a "legal" way of canvasing, and like much else in WP, it's hypocritical. - Nhprman 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it can equally be a tool for the philosophical Inclusionist, Mergist and (my own personal preference) AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD-ist. In that sense it is no different from the main AfD page itself. The real aim is to attract input into debates from people who know something about the topic. And that's not limited to the keep/delete/whateever decision itself, it can often result in improvements to the article. the wub "?!" 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That it could be used for Inclusionism is, I suppose, a possiblity, in the same sense that one could join a political party or church one does not agree with in order to learn what they're up to, but that's not a very efficient use of one's time, nor particularly gratifying to be amongst those who disagree with you all he time. The REAL intent can be gleaned from what you hinted at with the longest-WP-title-ever. Once one visits the articles pointed to by the Deletion Project and other sites, the Deletionists are waiting to pounce with Essays Pretending to Be Policy, and actual policies gang-written by (or at least over-strictly interpreted by) designed carefully by deletionist-in-mindset to shut down all discussion. I've seen several like this, and am witnessing one now, in which the Clever Little Admins' lawyerly slickness have gotten Deletionism-for-deletion's-sake down to a science. - Nhprman 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather a sweeping generalisation. Some admins are more disposed to inclusionism. Projects are exactly the place to notify interested users. Anyone interested can watchlist. My own observation as to the effect of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts is simply that it brings informed people to the date and helps to produce the most accurate outcome. I have seen no evidence of bias one way as a result. If anything, articles have been kept as those more familiar with and motivated by the subject have been able to produce suitable references etc. Ty 02:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories for Economics and Environment

Environment especially deserves a category. Economics may not. I suppose the reason these don't have categories is that articles within their purview don't get deleted that much. I dunno. Anyway, it's a suggestion. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion sorting lists are not created unless there is a demonstrated need for them, or the topic is so universally interesting that it is expected that it will attract a wide cross section of the community. i.e. we dont want a list that is only watched by a single small project; that turns delsort listing into canvassing. My first thought is the "Environment" and "Econmics" definitely are suitable for delsort lists. They may not be high traffic lists, but they are very broad topics. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as John says, these seem like sensible lists. I'll stick them in the proposals section for a few days, just to see if anyone objects. the wub "?!" 16:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game-related

The template {{subst:delsort|Game-related}}<small>—~~~~</small> gives something like "list of Game-related-related deletion discussions". Should this be fixed so the term "related" doesn't appear twice? Thanks. Kariteh (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Kariteh (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I hadn't noticed that, it should probably be fixed somehow. Possibly a move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games? At the same time I was wondering if we shouldn't repurpose that list to avoid overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. It could include D&D, wargames, board games, that kind of stuff, which covers enough to justify its own list. I'm not sure of a good name though. 4chan uses "Traditional games", which seems alright. Anyone else have an opinion on this? the wub "?!" 15:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Using AWB

Under Scripts and Tools it lists AWB as a tool to use for sorting Afds. I can't find any documentation on how to do this. I've tried running Afds through AWB with many different settings and nothing turns up. Any help? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Language

A question on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language. Another editor resorted a discussion on a neologism out of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language and into Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet, giving an edit summary that the article is not about language. No problem, but it leaves me confused -- what is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language for? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

my change to template:Deletionlist

I've made a change to Template:Deletionlist to change the line

"<nowiki>{{subst:delsort|(name of this list)}} -- ~~~~"</nowiki>

to

"<nowiki>{{subst:delsort|{{{1}}}}} -- ~~~~"</nowiki>

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)