This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
On 24th August, Someone else reformatted VfD with the aim of reducing the 93kb page. Comments and suggested improvements made before7 September are summarized below. Please see the archive for the original text.
Page was previously 93K long. Now nominees only are here, and discussion is on the daily pages. After each day is over, the discussion can be moved to the page. If it is decided this is too unwieldy (though I can't see that it's more unwieldy than 93K), the daily comments don't have to be moved and we'll be back to normal in a week. -- Someone else 09:35, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think the pages for the individual dates should be subpages. This way, it is no longer necessary to include "back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" for each new page created. The software will automatically include the link. -- Jiang 09:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Comments moved from VfD page'
Comments from Village pump' (and more comments added here...)
I suggest we split off:
-- Tarquin 14:33, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Noting Camembert's suggestion above re unilateral arses, I created such a page. Martin 17:08, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
OK, here's one. With the old style, I could put the Vfd page on my watchlist and see whenever someone made an addition. The way it stands now, I have to watchlist every "day" to make sure that I can catch new discussions. In addition, I think the format has a chilling effect on discussion of anything older than one day.
I'm not saying it's unredeemably terrible, and something needs to be done about the length of the Vfd page, but I don't think that this is it. -- Dante Alighieri 22:03, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The new VfD format stinks — the cure is almost worse than the disease. Splitting everything into separate pages by day is a very poor solution, it makes commenting on deletion votes very difficult, and monitoring of votes via watchlist basically impossible. I think it also has resulted in a dramatic reduction in voting and participation by the community. Pages should be listed on the main VfD page for at least three days before being archived (which is basically what the subpages amount to — archives — because participation and discussion is way down). Daniel Quinlan 23:31, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
I'd thought this might turn out well... I was wrong. The current format is not working. Especially when one must go VFD->Date->Article's talk page... it's just bad. I see two options: A) the VFD-by-category and B) pages get listed on VFD, but absolutely all discussion is on talk pages. Neither of these is new. The other thing is that people really, really need to stop listing things that don't need deletion. Maybe a moratorium on deletion of pages with content (any content!) for a while. If there's a problem with a page, fix it. If it's a stub... then it's a stub, which means it's a valid article that you should expand upon. If it's a copyvio or POV ranting, rework it so that it's not. Deletion is too much of a 'quick fix' for when we don't want to take the trouble to fix something. -- Jake 04:07, 2003 Aug 27 (UTC)
I encourage people to follow Jake's advice, fixing pages rather than listing them for deletion. Martin
Here's one option: people list pages they want to delete. If anyone objects, the page is delisted, and discussion moved to the talk page. Then they discuss the issue, reach a consensus, and come back here if the only solution they could find is deletion. If they find an alternative option, then they need not bother this page again.
Just a thought, anyway. Martin 08:24, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Just let administrators delete nonsense without listing it first. All objections should be handled on Votes for Undeletion. An administrator who abuses his deletion powers (i.e. whose deletions are frequently overturned) should simply lose his administrator status. -- Wik
-- Wik 15:26, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Something like "Jim was born in 1968 and likes hedgehogs", if it's in a page about Jim is debatably a stub, and not "pure" junk. -- Tarquin 08:56, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Also posted on Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion/copyvio
It states that VfD for copyright violations are seven days. Is this in complete conformity with the DMCA? The section also known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which is made a part of the US Copyright law in sec. 512 of Title 17 United States Code, states if someone who is a copyright owner follows the rules of that section, the ISP should remove the material for which copyright is claimed "expediously" so as not to incur liability i.e. not wait seven or ten days, but take it off ASAP). Of course this requires notice to the Wikipedia:designated agent which is not what is happening in the VfD pages, but since we are trying to make sure there is no infringement shouldn't that be mentioned on the Vfd pages and in the VfD policy pages? If someone who claims copyright finds out that we are infringing shouldn't we make sure that Wikipedia is in compliance so we do not occur any legal liability to Bomis, or Wikimedia? Just a thought. Alex756 22:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The designated agent is Jimbo. If he gets a notice, then he can have the material removed immediately, without going through VfD. Doubtless he would also announce any such event on the mailing lists -- certainly for the first time. VfD is not for the designated agent. -- Toby Bartels 09:12, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't see any problem here. OCILLA talks about cases where someone who owns the copyright or has the right to act in their name gives notice of the copyright violation and requests its removal. In such a case immediate removal seems indeed called for, but I don't see what VfD's policy pages have to do with that. Andre Engels 10:59, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think you have both missed my point. My point is that clear copyright infringements do not call for a seven day waiting period and a consensus voting process. This Vfd process is much more complex than needed. If it is a simple copyright violation, just delete it before it is made into a page history (and then it is permanently available on Wikipedia). Shouldn't we be trying to make Boomis' life simpler so that they never get a OCILLA notice? I thought that was the whole point of being so vigilant here, keep Wikipedia pure of copyright infringement, not vote on it and discuss it for weeks. I don't see any reason to dump this all in Boomis' lap if the volunteers can help prevent it. Alex756 04:05, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If we were sure they were copyright violations that would make sense, but the main reason we list them rather than outright deleting is that we've ended up being wrong in more than a few cases. It's not that infrequent for an author to submit material they have also published on another website; it's also not unheard-of for it to turn out that the site copied from actually was in the public domain (PD US government sources occasionally turn up on VfD for copyright violations, for example). -- Delirium 06:29, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)
Maybe if it were clearer that page histories are not released under the GFDL then we would not have to worry about deleting anything, just blanking the page into the page history archive (it is always available in significant ways under fair use for research and study). If someone gave permission they can always do a revert later. Wouldn't your point Delirium also indicate that putting a stub on that page that is VfD/copyvio is not a good idea until the copyvio allegation is cleared up ?) Alex756 04:00, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
VfD is getting out of hand. We need some sort of fastrack process. Can I suggest that we have a Wikipedia:Votes for immediate deletion that requires 3 admins to agree to immediate deletion, or something anything that will speed up things. Mintguy 22:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, something like Triangle Lover dose not need 7 days Smith03 22:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There is something that I prepared earlier. Well, sort of. It's not ready, but maybe it will be when we "really" need it. At least if someone bothers to tweak it. I'm (not so) obliquely referring to Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal) which I submitted to a total overhaul (though my IP-address got the credit due to login timeouts :) and name change :D (used to be something like "Waiting room", and was much too complex anyway. I've tried to simplify the thing and probably will in the future.) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 23:01, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
When a day only contains one or two articles listed for deletion, I think it makes sense to move it back here. VfD is around 10-15K these days, so we've got space to spare, and people have frequently observed that seperate page => nobody comments. Martin 21:10, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Some people seem to always blank pages that they list on VfD. Why? Keeping the content makes it easier to see whether it should stay. (and yes, of course one can read it in the page history, but what's the point?) -- Morven 03:28, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
On 24th August, Someone else reformatted VfD with the aim of reducing the 93kb page. Comments and suggested improvements made before7 September are summarized below. Please see the archive for the original text.
Page was previously 93K long. Now nominees only are here, and discussion is on the daily pages. After each day is over, the discussion can be moved to the page. If it is decided this is too unwieldy (though I can't see that it's more unwieldy than 93K), the daily comments don't have to be moved and we'll be back to normal in a week. -- Someone else 09:35, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think the pages for the individual dates should be subpages. This way, it is no longer necessary to include "back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" for each new page created. The software will automatically include the link. -- Jiang 09:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Comments moved from VfD page'
Comments from Village pump' (and more comments added here...)
I suggest we split off:
-- Tarquin 14:33, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Noting Camembert's suggestion above re unilateral arses, I created such a page. Martin 17:08, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
OK, here's one. With the old style, I could put the Vfd page on my watchlist and see whenever someone made an addition. The way it stands now, I have to watchlist every "day" to make sure that I can catch new discussions. In addition, I think the format has a chilling effect on discussion of anything older than one day.
I'm not saying it's unredeemably terrible, and something needs to be done about the length of the Vfd page, but I don't think that this is it. -- Dante Alighieri 22:03, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The new VfD format stinks — the cure is almost worse than the disease. Splitting everything into separate pages by day is a very poor solution, it makes commenting on deletion votes very difficult, and monitoring of votes via watchlist basically impossible. I think it also has resulted in a dramatic reduction in voting and participation by the community. Pages should be listed on the main VfD page for at least three days before being archived (which is basically what the subpages amount to — archives — because participation and discussion is way down). Daniel Quinlan 23:31, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
I'd thought this might turn out well... I was wrong. The current format is not working. Especially when one must go VFD->Date->Article's talk page... it's just bad. I see two options: A) the VFD-by-category and B) pages get listed on VFD, but absolutely all discussion is on talk pages. Neither of these is new. The other thing is that people really, really need to stop listing things that don't need deletion. Maybe a moratorium on deletion of pages with content (any content!) for a while. If there's a problem with a page, fix it. If it's a stub... then it's a stub, which means it's a valid article that you should expand upon. If it's a copyvio or POV ranting, rework it so that it's not. Deletion is too much of a 'quick fix' for when we don't want to take the trouble to fix something. -- Jake 04:07, 2003 Aug 27 (UTC)
I encourage people to follow Jake's advice, fixing pages rather than listing them for deletion. Martin
Here's one option: people list pages they want to delete. If anyone objects, the page is delisted, and discussion moved to the talk page. Then they discuss the issue, reach a consensus, and come back here if the only solution they could find is deletion. If they find an alternative option, then they need not bother this page again.
Just a thought, anyway. Martin 08:24, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Just let administrators delete nonsense without listing it first. All objections should be handled on Votes for Undeletion. An administrator who abuses his deletion powers (i.e. whose deletions are frequently overturned) should simply lose his administrator status. -- Wik
-- Wik 15:26, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Something like "Jim was born in 1968 and likes hedgehogs", if it's in a page about Jim is debatably a stub, and not "pure" junk. -- Tarquin 08:56, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Also posted on Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion/copyvio
It states that VfD for copyright violations are seven days. Is this in complete conformity with the DMCA? The section also known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which is made a part of the US Copyright law in sec. 512 of Title 17 United States Code, states if someone who is a copyright owner follows the rules of that section, the ISP should remove the material for which copyright is claimed "expediously" so as not to incur liability i.e. not wait seven or ten days, but take it off ASAP). Of course this requires notice to the Wikipedia:designated agent which is not what is happening in the VfD pages, but since we are trying to make sure there is no infringement shouldn't that be mentioned on the Vfd pages and in the VfD policy pages? If someone who claims copyright finds out that we are infringing shouldn't we make sure that Wikipedia is in compliance so we do not occur any legal liability to Bomis, or Wikimedia? Just a thought. Alex756 22:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The designated agent is Jimbo. If he gets a notice, then he can have the material removed immediately, without going through VfD. Doubtless he would also announce any such event on the mailing lists -- certainly for the first time. VfD is not for the designated agent. -- Toby Bartels 09:12, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't see any problem here. OCILLA talks about cases where someone who owns the copyright or has the right to act in their name gives notice of the copyright violation and requests its removal. In such a case immediate removal seems indeed called for, but I don't see what VfD's policy pages have to do with that. Andre Engels 10:59, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think you have both missed my point. My point is that clear copyright infringements do not call for a seven day waiting period and a consensus voting process. This Vfd process is much more complex than needed. If it is a simple copyright violation, just delete it before it is made into a page history (and then it is permanently available on Wikipedia). Shouldn't we be trying to make Boomis' life simpler so that they never get a OCILLA notice? I thought that was the whole point of being so vigilant here, keep Wikipedia pure of copyright infringement, not vote on it and discuss it for weeks. I don't see any reason to dump this all in Boomis' lap if the volunteers can help prevent it. Alex756 04:05, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If we were sure they were copyright violations that would make sense, but the main reason we list them rather than outright deleting is that we've ended up being wrong in more than a few cases. It's not that infrequent for an author to submit material they have also published on another website; it's also not unheard-of for it to turn out that the site copied from actually was in the public domain (PD US government sources occasionally turn up on VfD for copyright violations, for example). -- Delirium 06:29, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)
Maybe if it were clearer that page histories are not released under the GFDL then we would not have to worry about deleting anything, just blanking the page into the page history archive (it is always available in significant ways under fair use for research and study). If someone gave permission they can always do a revert later. Wouldn't your point Delirium also indicate that putting a stub on that page that is VfD/copyvio is not a good idea until the copyvio allegation is cleared up ?) Alex756 04:00, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
VfD is getting out of hand. We need some sort of fastrack process. Can I suggest that we have a Wikipedia:Votes for immediate deletion that requires 3 admins to agree to immediate deletion, or something anything that will speed up things. Mintguy 22:15, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, something like Triangle Lover dose not need 7 days Smith03 22:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There is something that I prepared earlier. Well, sort of. It's not ready, but maybe it will be when we "really" need it. At least if someone bothers to tweak it. I'm (not so) obliquely referring to Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal) which I submitted to a total overhaul (though my IP-address got the credit due to login timeouts :) and name change :D (used to be something like "Waiting room", and was much too complex anyway. I've tried to simplify the thing and probably will in the future.) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 23:01, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
When a day only contains one or two articles listed for deletion, I think it makes sense to move it back here. VfD is around 10-15K these days, so we've got space to spare, and people have frequently observed that seperate page => nobody comments. Martin 21:10, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Some people seem to always blank pages that they list on VfD. Why? Keeping the content makes it easier to see whether it should stay. (and yes, of course one can read it in the page history, but what's the point?) -- Morven 03:28, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)