![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
I have been working through the merge backlog (over 240 when I started, some over 2 years old). The last few I have done I have basically ended up just redirecting. Generally these are poorly sourced articles that have been closed as merge (most with no indication of what should be merged) into a well developed and sourced article that either covers the topic already or has no obvious place to put it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AliEn (ALICE Environment), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient & Honorable Order of Turtles Inc., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Blackness in the U.S., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hitchcock Edition Clue for ones that ended up basically being redirected (I did merge information from the turtle article, but with some reservations).
Even if the majority !vote merge the best outcome might still be redirect. I think that when closing a AFD, closers should consider weighting a merge !vote that doesn't indicate what should be merged closer to a redirect !vote (see Wikipedia:Merge what? for an essay on the issue). What do editors think off adding something to this effect at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Other outcomes or another appropriate place? AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
After reading the above I thought I would make a specific proposal for a word change. I think we should keep it relatively short and the aim should ultimately be to encourage better !votes and closes. Maybe more specifics about relisting, pinging etc should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Relisting AfDs
Current wording:
This combines two separate pages into a single page. Merge votes should be
specific and clear. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page.
Proposed wording (changed sentence highlighted her but would not be in the final version):
This combines two separate pages into a single page.
Non-specific and unclear merge votes may be weighted towards redirect votes by the closer. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page.
AIRcorn (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Northamerica1000: No one has responded against my specific proposal for over 10 days. Would you like to propose some different wording or a reason why we should not be encouraging merge voters to clarify their position. AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Closed as redirect. Closer.
- Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Nominator.
- Merge to foo
- Merge per above
- Merge per above
- Merge per above
- Merge per above... etc.
I have noticed this issue for a while, so I'd like to propose an update to the section at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ( WP:NACD) to match the non-admin deletion process stated at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure ( WP:RMNAC). I propose that this page be updated to state that non-admin closures at Wikipedia:Requested moves that require the page be moved over a redirect that needs to be deleted be allowed. This is how WP:RMNAC is essentially worded, so here is the text I propose be added to the section WP:NACD redirects:
Exception: A non-administrator may close a Requested move discussion to "move" if the move requires that a redirect be deleted in order to perform the move. (See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closures.)
-- Steel1943 ( talk) 19:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The deletion process encompasses the processes involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to delete or keep pages and media., doesn't clarify that this doesn't apply to WP:RM. In a move request, the community may form a decision to delete a page to move another page to it. It's in scope of this page, and saying that this information proposed above should not be included because the scope of this page clearly doesn't include RM is a bit misleading, especially to those who do not completely understand Wikipedia. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@ JJMC89: Hello. In revision 730386650, you've written "{{anchor}} shouldn't be used in headings".
Why? And says who?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
16:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If the template is added to a section title then the code will appear in the edit summary window when that section is edited, as in "— JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)/* {{anchor|Issues}}Limitations */ New issue
". Also, when the section is saved, browsers may not return to the section. Consider using<span id="..."></span>
directly, rather than using the anchor template, when in a section title.
I want to nominate an article for speedy deletion. I am looking for the procedure for this. I don't have time to become an expert on Wikipedia. I have commented on the article's Talk page of my intention. Grounds for the dfeletion are Wikipedia's standing as a reliable resource. Please see Talk page for details: /info/en/?search=Talk:Heterotelergone#Nominate_for_DELETION. Over to you cogniscenti out there. LookingGlass ( talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD voting templates. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is an oft-quoted essay amongst editors frequenting deletion discussions. The discussions about upgrading this to an essay perhaps first took place in the year 2008 and ended with no consensus to upgrade the same; one reason was the instruction creep within the current essay. Another reason was that the essay, at least in the opinion of some, had a few statements that went against current policy.
Thanks for the time. Lourdes 03:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
For some reason this talk page is listed at the category Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages. I can't figure out why. Can anyone locate whatever anomaly here is causing that listing, and fix it? Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The Search all deletion discussions function just keeps saying "An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length." Oktalist ( talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Q about the current setup. Can we easily, button-push search 9 or 18 pages about deletion
and about copyright WP:Copyright problems and about discussion
for any phrase of interest, say an article title?
A No. But on the actual page of interest, where we have the template that posts its review status, we can easily integrate three search links into it
Then mention this here for reviewers to go there and use the three search links. Those search links are here, so they look for this page Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. They work there to find all mentions of themselves in the WP or WT namespaces or archive subpages. Three search links, one for each intitle parameter, each searching two namespaces for the fullpagename, up to 100 results on one page.
Why? (Besides the char cnt limit), CirrusSearch intitle parameter does not currently recognize OR. InputBox is not currently able to wrap or glue the query terms we need.
I will replace the misinformation after implementing the template changes. — Cpiral§ Cpiral 05:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
A look at the history of the WP:NOQUORUM WP:NPASR shows that it has been there a long time. I would say that the original purpose no longer exists.
There is a competing long-standing idea that renominations after a no-consensus close should wait for two months. We recently had a renomination take place after a month and a half, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UrbanClap_(4th_nomination) that received broad objection.
There is a idea new to me recently proposed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20 by User:Knowledgekid87 to change WP:NPASR to say, "no prejudice against speedy renomination by someone other than the original nominator (NPASR)." This has broad applicability for relist problems that have been around for a long time. But, I don't think that this should apply to WP:NPASR, and I am proposing a different fix below.
WP:NPASR remains an important concept for procedural closures, but even there a problem exists if a review goes to DRV and someone is already starting a new discussion. And commonly for speedy closes, it is expected that the same nominator is empowered to improve and renominate.
In the midst of all these issues, I propose moving WP:NPASR out into its own section, and allow a WP:NOQUORUM No-consensus to default to an expectation of two months before renominating. The other issues here would need separate discussions.
Create new section below WP:NOQUORUM, removing the existing NPASR text from WP:NOQUORUM
Unscintillating ( talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I also established that we have two community standards for no-consensus re-nominations, and the result is whiplash for those who get caught in the competing rules. I established that there is community sentiment to fix the problem, which appears in the title of the discussion. I established in the example which caught your attention, that the default community norm for no-consensus renominations is and remains at two months. As for the "anecdotal" issue, the AfD that started this discussion is an NPASR, and you have the links to that AfD. So I have also given an example of NPASR.
If you want to come up with new justification for having noquorum no-consensus NPASR; please also address the issues of competing community standards, and the need to retain NPASR unchanged for procedural closes which allow a re-nominator to fix errors in the previous AfD. Further, please address the issue of the need to break out NPASR from its current location. Thank you, Unscintillating ( talk) 14:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
But you are also saying "NPASR is no consensus". This part is incorrect and this erroneous coupling is one of the reasons for this proposal. WP:NPASR has meaning independent of No quorum#No consensus. NPASR is an acronym that means, "No prejudice against speedy renomination. Specifically, WP:NPASR is commonly applicable to Procedural closes and various parts of WP:Speedy keep. The definition of the acronym needs to be split out. Unscintillating ( talk) 13:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted a bold edit, but I got reverted without any discussion. If you want the edit to stay in then we need to discuss this and get consensus for it, see WP:BRD. @ Ansh666: ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be a bit bizarre if any editor could close any discussion at any stage, and then claim that a mod is required to undo that close (but this is happening). ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 09:58, 31 January 2017 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
I have been working through the merge backlog (over 240 when I started, some over 2 years old). The last few I have done I have basically ended up just redirecting. Generally these are poorly sourced articles that have been closed as merge (most with no indication of what should be merged) into a well developed and sourced article that either covers the topic already or has no obvious place to put it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AliEn (ALICE Environment), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient & Honorable Order of Turtles Inc., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Blackness in the U.S., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hitchcock Edition Clue for ones that ended up basically being redirected (I did merge information from the turtle article, but with some reservations).
Even if the majority !vote merge the best outcome might still be redirect. I think that when closing a AFD, closers should consider weighting a merge !vote that doesn't indicate what should be merged closer to a redirect !vote (see Wikipedia:Merge what? for an essay on the issue). What do editors think off adding something to this effect at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Other outcomes or another appropriate place? AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
After reading the above I thought I would make a specific proposal for a word change. I think we should keep it relatively short and the aim should ultimately be to encourage better !votes and closes. Maybe more specifics about relisting, pinging etc should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Relisting AfDs
Current wording:
This combines two separate pages into a single page. Merge votes should be
specific and clear. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page.
Proposed wording (changed sentence highlighted her but would not be in the final version):
This combines two separate pages into a single page.
Non-specific and unclear merge votes may be weighted towards redirect votes by the closer. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page.
AIRcorn (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Northamerica1000: No one has responded against my specific proposal for over 10 days. Would you like to propose some different wording or a reason why we should not be encouraging merge voters to clarify their position. AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Closed as redirect. Closer.
- Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Nominator.
- Merge to foo
- Merge per above
- Merge per above
- Merge per above
- Merge per above... etc.
I have noticed this issue for a while, so I'd like to propose an update to the section at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ( WP:NACD) to match the non-admin deletion process stated at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure ( WP:RMNAC). I propose that this page be updated to state that non-admin closures at Wikipedia:Requested moves that require the page be moved over a redirect that needs to be deleted be allowed. This is how WP:RMNAC is essentially worded, so here is the text I propose be added to the section WP:NACD redirects:
Exception: A non-administrator may close a Requested move discussion to "move" if the move requires that a redirect be deleted in order to perform the move. (See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closures.)
-- Steel1943 ( talk) 19:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The deletion process encompasses the processes involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to delete or keep pages and media., doesn't clarify that this doesn't apply to WP:RM. In a move request, the community may form a decision to delete a page to move another page to it. It's in scope of this page, and saying that this information proposed above should not be included because the scope of this page clearly doesn't include RM is a bit misleading, especially to those who do not completely understand Wikipedia. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@ JJMC89: Hello. In revision 730386650, you've written "{{anchor}} shouldn't be used in headings".
Why? And says who?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
16:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If the template is added to a section title then the code will appear in the edit summary window when that section is edited, as in "— JJMC89 ( T· C) 19:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)/* {{anchor|Issues}}Limitations */ New issue
". Also, when the section is saved, browsers may not return to the section. Consider using<span id="..."></span>
directly, rather than using the anchor template, when in a section title.
I want to nominate an article for speedy deletion. I am looking for the procedure for this. I don't have time to become an expert on Wikipedia. I have commented on the article's Talk page of my intention. Grounds for the dfeletion are Wikipedia's standing as a reliable resource. Please see Talk page for details: /info/en/?search=Talk:Heterotelergone#Nominate_for_DELETION. Over to you cogniscenti out there. LookingGlass ( talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD voting templates. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is an oft-quoted essay amongst editors frequenting deletion discussions. The discussions about upgrading this to an essay perhaps first took place in the year 2008 and ended with no consensus to upgrade the same; one reason was the instruction creep within the current essay. Another reason was that the essay, at least in the opinion of some, had a few statements that went against current policy.
Thanks for the time. Lourdes 03:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
For some reason this talk page is listed at the category Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages. I can't figure out why. Can anyone locate whatever anomaly here is causing that listing, and fix it? Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The Search all deletion discussions function just keeps saying "An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length." Oktalist ( talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Q about the current setup. Can we easily, button-push search 9 or 18 pages about deletion
and about copyright WP:Copyright problems and about discussion
for any phrase of interest, say an article title?
A No. But on the actual page of interest, where we have the template that posts its review status, we can easily integrate three search links into it
Then mention this here for reviewers to go there and use the three search links. Those search links are here, so they look for this page Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. They work there to find all mentions of themselves in the WP or WT namespaces or archive subpages. Three search links, one for each intitle parameter, each searching two namespaces for the fullpagename, up to 100 results on one page.
Why? (Besides the char cnt limit), CirrusSearch intitle parameter does not currently recognize OR. InputBox is not currently able to wrap or glue the query terms we need.
I will replace the misinformation after implementing the template changes. — Cpiral§ Cpiral 05:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
A look at the history of the WP:NOQUORUM WP:NPASR shows that it has been there a long time. I would say that the original purpose no longer exists.
There is a competing long-standing idea that renominations after a no-consensus close should wait for two months. We recently had a renomination take place after a month and a half, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UrbanClap_(4th_nomination) that received broad objection.
There is a idea new to me recently proposed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20 by User:Knowledgekid87 to change WP:NPASR to say, "no prejudice against speedy renomination by someone other than the original nominator (NPASR)." This has broad applicability for relist problems that have been around for a long time. But, I don't think that this should apply to WP:NPASR, and I am proposing a different fix below.
WP:NPASR remains an important concept for procedural closures, but even there a problem exists if a review goes to DRV and someone is already starting a new discussion. And commonly for speedy closes, it is expected that the same nominator is empowered to improve and renominate.
In the midst of all these issues, I propose moving WP:NPASR out into its own section, and allow a WP:NOQUORUM No-consensus to default to an expectation of two months before renominating. The other issues here would need separate discussions.
Create new section below WP:NOQUORUM, removing the existing NPASR text from WP:NOQUORUM
Unscintillating ( talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I also established that we have two community standards for no-consensus re-nominations, and the result is whiplash for those who get caught in the competing rules. I established that there is community sentiment to fix the problem, which appears in the title of the discussion. I established in the example which caught your attention, that the default community norm for no-consensus renominations is and remains at two months. As for the "anecdotal" issue, the AfD that started this discussion is an NPASR, and you have the links to that AfD. So I have also given an example of NPASR.
If you want to come up with new justification for having noquorum no-consensus NPASR; please also address the issues of competing community standards, and the need to retain NPASR unchanged for procedural closes which allow a re-nominator to fix errors in the previous AfD. Further, please address the issue of the need to break out NPASR from its current location. Thank you, Unscintillating ( talk) 14:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
But you are also saying "NPASR is no consensus". This part is incorrect and this erroneous coupling is one of the reasons for this proposal. WP:NPASR has meaning independent of No quorum#No consensus. NPASR is an acronym that means, "No prejudice against speedy renomination. Specifically, WP:NPASR is commonly applicable to Procedural closes and various parts of WP:Speedy keep. The definition of the acronym needs to be split out. Unscintillating ( talk) 13:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted a bold edit, but I got reverted without any discussion. If you want the edit to stay in then we need to discuss this and get consensus for it, see WP:BRD. @ Ansh666: ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be a bit bizarre if any editor could close any discussion at any stage, and then claim that a mod is required to undo that close (but this is happening). ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 09:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)