![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
If there was no consensus, now what can we do?? Please try to think of something to do so it can look more like a real encyclopedia article. Georgia guy 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to remove some space on all these long pages to make it look better, and save some server space as well. Whopper 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice from the notes above that this page has previously been up for deletion and that many of the people that voted to keep it also suggested that it be tidied up or reorganised in some way. I also notice that Georgia guy's attempts to improve the situation have now been reverted. The only way I can see this avoiding a future nomination for deletion is if we come to some sort of compromise on how to take this forward. I feel that the first step to any compromise is if we define exactly what it is that is objectionable about this page. For the moment, I would prefer it if we keep subjective comments like "this page is non-notable" and "it has no encyclopedic value" to one side. Those arguments can be dealt with once we have at least tried to improve the situation. Therefore, I would like any interested parties to list below any problems you have with this page that wont involve outright deletion of the content. I will invite everyone who voted or commented in the deletion proposal to this discussion page so we can try to resolve this. Road Wizard 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please add any ideas you have to solve the problems listed above. Road Wizard 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just tossing an idea out, how would someone use this page? Design from the perspective of making the information useful and accesible to the proposed audience. Why would someone be looking for this on Wikipedia? How can it be made user-friendly? KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to float an idea, what if the individual url links to the SIs were removed? This would reduce the amount of text in the article. As David Newton has pointed out, the OPSI site does not have SIs for all years. Having a list for the 1940s, 50s, 60, 70s and 80s would be providing a service to readers. I did start adding some from the 1940s, but I hadn't realised that the numbers did not run consecutivetly and got rather confused. Kurando | ^_^ 12:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
We have now had a week to discuss the problem, and we have come up with a few possible improvements. I think it is now time to move to the next stage and take action. As a first step, I am planning to remove all of the external links from the page tomorrow so that we can see what effect that has. Any objections? Road Wizard 21:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the links have now been removed and the page has reduced to 182KB. Its a great improvement, but still a fairly large article. Any suggestions on where we go from here, or do you think we have done enough? Road Wizard 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I am waiting for a response on whether people think enough has been done to improve the article, I thought I would introduce a more complete debate on the subject of deletion. Earlier I asked everyone to avoid subjective comments, but now that we are over one week into the discussion it might be a good time to reintroduce them. Hopefully by revealing all of the concerns people have about this article, the editors who want to keep it will have the opportunity to either clarify the issues involved or correct oustanding defficiencies. At the very least, it will provide voters on any future AfD a quick list of the pertinent arguments.
I have made two sections below, one for keep and one for delete. Please place your arguments in the corresponding section unless you are responding directly to another user's argument. Thanks. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add any arguments for keeping this article here. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add any arguments for deleting this article here. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why were all the external links removed? They are very useful. It is frustrating seeing the title and not being able to then immediately access the content. Request for them to be restored. Tyrenius 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I see there was a long debate about this article some time ago. I note that there are 4 orphaned subpages with duplicate information that essentially I propose should be deleted. However, as I haven't analysed the content I have termed it a merger. These subpages are not linked properly from the appropriate template, unlike this page.
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
If there was no consensus, now what can we do?? Please try to think of something to do so it can look more like a real encyclopedia article. Georgia guy 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to remove some space on all these long pages to make it look better, and save some server space as well. Whopper 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice from the notes above that this page has previously been up for deletion and that many of the people that voted to keep it also suggested that it be tidied up or reorganised in some way. I also notice that Georgia guy's attempts to improve the situation have now been reverted. The only way I can see this avoiding a future nomination for deletion is if we come to some sort of compromise on how to take this forward. I feel that the first step to any compromise is if we define exactly what it is that is objectionable about this page. For the moment, I would prefer it if we keep subjective comments like "this page is non-notable" and "it has no encyclopedic value" to one side. Those arguments can be dealt with once we have at least tried to improve the situation. Therefore, I would like any interested parties to list below any problems you have with this page that wont involve outright deletion of the content. I will invite everyone who voted or commented in the deletion proposal to this discussion page so we can try to resolve this. Road Wizard 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please add any ideas you have to solve the problems listed above. Road Wizard 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just tossing an idea out, how would someone use this page? Design from the perspective of making the information useful and accesible to the proposed audience. Why would someone be looking for this on Wikipedia? How can it be made user-friendly? KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to float an idea, what if the individual url links to the SIs were removed? This would reduce the amount of text in the article. As David Newton has pointed out, the OPSI site does not have SIs for all years. Having a list for the 1940s, 50s, 60, 70s and 80s would be providing a service to readers. I did start adding some from the 1940s, but I hadn't realised that the numbers did not run consecutivetly and got rather confused. Kurando | ^_^ 12:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
We have now had a week to discuss the problem, and we have come up with a few possible improvements. I think it is now time to move to the next stage and take action. As a first step, I am planning to remove all of the external links from the page tomorrow so that we can see what effect that has. Any objections? Road Wizard 21:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the links have now been removed and the page has reduced to 182KB. Its a great improvement, but still a fairly large article. Any suggestions on where we go from here, or do you think we have done enough? Road Wizard 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I am waiting for a response on whether people think enough has been done to improve the article, I thought I would introduce a more complete debate on the subject of deletion. Earlier I asked everyone to avoid subjective comments, but now that we are over one week into the discussion it might be a good time to reintroduce them. Hopefully by revealing all of the concerns people have about this article, the editors who want to keep it will have the opportunity to either clarify the issues involved or correct oustanding defficiencies. At the very least, it will provide voters on any future AfD a quick list of the pertinent arguments.
I have made two sections below, one for keep and one for delete. Please place your arguments in the corresponding section unless you are responding directly to another user's argument. Thanks. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add any arguments for keeping this article here. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add any arguments for deleting this article here. Road Wizard 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why were all the external links removed? They are very useful. It is frustrating seeing the title and not being able to then immediately access the content. Request for them to be restored. Tyrenius 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I see there was a long debate about this article some time ago. I note that there are 4 orphaned subpages with duplicate information that essentially I propose should be deleted. However, as I haven't analysed the content I have termed it a merger. These subpages are not linked properly from the appropriate template, unlike this page.