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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
1/4 MB load - This no longer make sense. This page should only contain links to individual day pages. Please voice your agreement Lotsofissues 01:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid there are damn good technical reasons not to list the whole week on the main deletion discussions portal, as detailed on wikitech-l by Tim Starling: [1]. From that post:
That is: THIS PAGE ALONE puts noticeable and undesirable strain on the server architecture in its present form, as declared by the people who run the Wikimedia machines.
(There's also the antisocial nature of it: requiring people to load over a megabyte before being allowed to enter VFD discussions, unless they happen to know who has a list of day links, is profoundly exclusionary.)
You may like the all-on-one-page version of VFD, but it's actually becoming a significant technical problem.
The all-on-one-page version should be much less of a strain if it's on a separate linked page for its fans, rather than being the default page pointed at by WP:VFD. - David Gerard 18:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
THANKS! :-) Lotsofissues 01:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Following the template standardisation competition a new {{ oldvfd}} template has been created. This uses the new standard talk page scheme and shows an old VFD in much the same way as we have old PR and old FAC nominations listed. I think we should start using this for a nice and consistent way of showing the progression of an article. violet/riga (t) 09:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems like all of these articles still have the vfd tag even though their discussion has been closed. Is there more to the process, or does someone just need to get around to it? -- Dmcdevit 00:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Is this one sufficiently old that the vfd notice can be taken off the page? 24.54.208.177 03:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thryduulf requested (on WP:AN/I) a check into GRider and Tallyman's correlating behaviour. They have similarities, but there wasn't enough for me to be reasonably confident they were the same person. There does appear to be sockpuppet theatre going on here, though. A combination of reviewing edits, IP checks and a check with Tim Starling for further technical info lets me state with reasonable confidence that GRider, HERMiT cRAB, Tallyman, ..-. ..- -.-. -.- ..- and almost certainly Jonahhh are the same person. Furthermore, they have also set up accounts G Rider, HERMiT CRAB, HERMiT cRAB and TallyMan (note subtle variation). I've blocked the lot as sockpuppets. There's another bunch on associated IPs I'm still checking further.
I'd always thought GRider behaved oddly differently from a regular single-account editor, and this would explain it a bit - the sockpuppeteer, whoever it is, was treating it as a role account for particular types of edit and not bothering to humanise it much.
I eagerly await the no doubt perfectly innocent explanation in my email.
This particularly pisses me off because I actually completely agree with their view on school articles - I see no reason we shouldn't have an article on every high school in the world ever, if we have verifiable sources. But the way they've gone about it is completely unacceptable. With friends like these ... - David Gerard 12:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The page was getting so long it was taking me 10 mins to load it each time, and was pretty unmanageable (to me) so I have been bold and simplified it.
I think this move will be welcomed by many users. However, if there is also a demand for the old very long page, let me know and I'll set up a Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) page, with a short-cut of WP:VfDL to cater for it too. Kind regards, jguk 18:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
See also technical reasons (given above, email from Tim Starling) why the longform page being the default is a really bad idea, because this page alone was providing significant undesirable server load on the Wikimedia machines. (Templates in templates = Bad Idea. Templates in templates generating a couple of megabytes of text that can't be cached because it has to be generated fresh each time a user accesses it = Really Bad Idea.)
I think it's clear from the pro-longform comments that the longform page is in fact necessary for those who can handle it and are used to it. The previous version of VFD should do the job there just fine under a non-default name - David Gerard 19:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Bravo! Much better. android↔ talk 19:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have an additional concern with this chopped up view. It is moving new users even further away from the instructions on how to use the VfD process and how to effectively participate in the discussions. Users with an interest in this aspect of maintenance need to see the instructions and should read through a variety of other discussions if they want to participate effectively. We have carefully built up a set of norms and practices on this page. The mechanics of this page may feel clumsy but it reaches concensus an amazing amount of the time. We must find a way to get users to read the instructions and to review other discussions so they can understand those norms and practices. Everything-on-a-page has its problems but we could always say "read the instructions at the top of the page" or "look at other discussions". Now, I fear that we have lost some of our ability to help new users learn the unwritten rules of VfD. I understand the technical reasons described above but I am not yet convinced that they justify this change. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank god, I suggested this a few years ago and got hissed away from Talk:VfD. Much better now. -- user:zanimum
This new simplified structure is an incredible improvement. Well done! -- Canderson7 22:45, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?! The VfD page is smaller than its talk page! This is unnatural! The sky is coming down! RUN! JRM · Talk 01:55, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
This was a lot better although I wondered for a few seconds why the page had become so short! Thanks! Sjakkalle 07:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks jguk , great improvement! Sietse 15:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Cool! But Current Votes section is so small now it's easy to miss it. Maybe make it in a frame and bold the dates. Grue 17:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Can we have each vfd page also include links to the last seven days of open votes (at the top or something) so we don't have to go back to the main VfD page to get to it? -- Dmcdevit 03:27, 11 May 2005 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
1/4 MB load - This no longer make sense. This page should only contain links to individual day pages. Please voice your agreement Lotsofissues 01:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid there are damn good technical reasons not to list the whole week on the main deletion discussions portal, as detailed on wikitech-l by Tim Starling: [1]. From that post:
That is: THIS PAGE ALONE puts noticeable and undesirable strain on the server architecture in its present form, as declared by the people who run the Wikimedia machines.
(There's also the antisocial nature of it: requiring people to load over a megabyte before being allowed to enter VFD discussions, unless they happen to know who has a list of day links, is profoundly exclusionary.)
You may like the all-on-one-page version of VFD, but it's actually becoming a significant technical problem.
The all-on-one-page version should be much less of a strain if it's on a separate linked page for its fans, rather than being the default page pointed at by WP:VFD. - David Gerard 18:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
THANKS! :-) Lotsofissues 01:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Following the template standardisation competition a new {{ oldvfd}} template has been created. This uses the new standard talk page scheme and shows an old VFD in much the same way as we have old PR and old FAC nominations listed. I think we should start using this for a nice and consistent way of showing the progression of an article. violet/riga (t) 09:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems like all of these articles still have the vfd tag even though their discussion has been closed. Is there more to the process, or does someone just need to get around to it? -- Dmcdevit 00:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Is this one sufficiently old that the vfd notice can be taken off the page? 24.54.208.177 03:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Thryduulf requested (on WP:AN/I) a check into GRider and Tallyman's correlating behaviour. They have similarities, but there wasn't enough for me to be reasonably confident they were the same person. There does appear to be sockpuppet theatre going on here, though. A combination of reviewing edits, IP checks and a check with Tim Starling for further technical info lets me state with reasonable confidence that GRider, HERMiT cRAB, Tallyman, ..-. ..- -.-. -.- ..- and almost certainly Jonahhh are the same person. Furthermore, they have also set up accounts G Rider, HERMiT CRAB, HERMiT cRAB and TallyMan (note subtle variation). I've blocked the lot as sockpuppets. There's another bunch on associated IPs I'm still checking further.
I'd always thought GRider behaved oddly differently from a regular single-account editor, and this would explain it a bit - the sockpuppeteer, whoever it is, was treating it as a role account for particular types of edit and not bothering to humanise it much.
I eagerly await the no doubt perfectly innocent explanation in my email.
This particularly pisses me off because I actually completely agree with their view on school articles - I see no reason we shouldn't have an article on every high school in the world ever, if we have verifiable sources. But the way they've gone about it is completely unacceptable. With friends like these ... - David Gerard 12:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The page was getting so long it was taking me 10 mins to load it each time, and was pretty unmanageable (to me) so I have been bold and simplified it.
I think this move will be welcomed by many users. However, if there is also a demand for the old very long page, let me know and I'll set up a Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) page, with a short-cut of WP:VfDL to cater for it too. Kind regards, jguk 18:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
See also technical reasons (given above, email from Tim Starling) why the longform page being the default is a really bad idea, because this page alone was providing significant undesirable server load on the Wikimedia machines. (Templates in templates = Bad Idea. Templates in templates generating a couple of megabytes of text that can't be cached because it has to be generated fresh each time a user accesses it = Really Bad Idea.)
I think it's clear from the pro-longform comments that the longform page is in fact necessary for those who can handle it and are used to it. The previous version of VFD should do the job there just fine under a non-default name - David Gerard 19:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Bravo! Much better. android↔ talk 19:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have an additional concern with this chopped up view. It is moving new users even further away from the instructions on how to use the VfD process and how to effectively participate in the discussions. Users with an interest in this aspect of maintenance need to see the instructions and should read through a variety of other discussions if they want to participate effectively. We have carefully built up a set of norms and practices on this page. The mechanics of this page may feel clumsy but it reaches concensus an amazing amount of the time. We must find a way to get users to read the instructions and to review other discussions so they can understand those norms and practices. Everything-on-a-page has its problems but we could always say "read the instructions at the top of the page" or "look at other discussions". Now, I fear that we have lost some of our ability to help new users learn the unwritten rules of VfD. I understand the technical reasons described above but I am not yet convinced that they justify this change. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank god, I suggested this a few years ago and got hissed away from Talk:VfD. Much better now. -- user:zanimum
This new simplified structure is an incredible improvement. Well done! -- Canderson7 22:45, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?! The VfD page is smaller than its talk page! This is unnatural! The sky is coming down! RUN! JRM · Talk 01:55, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
This was a lot better although I wondered for a few seconds why the page had become so short! Thanks! Sjakkalle 07:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks jguk , great improvement! Sietse 15:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Cool! But Current Votes section is so small now it's easy to miss it. Maybe make it in a frame and bold the dates. Grue 17:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Can we have each vfd page also include links to the last seven days of open votes (at the top or something) so we don't have to go back to the main VfD page to get to it? -- Dmcdevit 03:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)