On 29/09/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: You can replace it with whatever you like won't have any effect on admin actions they will just find some other rational. CSD is for the most part descriptive rather than prescriptive. "interest" is not a deletion or keeping criteria. idea) and its >"assertion" can be properly judged by individuals. For the most part it can. Sure you get a few errors but given the numbers involved there will always be an issue with that. Really doesn't matter. Admins will continue to delete that class of articles whatever you call it. -- geni

I'm not sure that the problem is admins - I go through the A7 noms and delete maybe 2/3s of them, and a good chunk of those I do delete aren't A7s, but are copyvios, spam, what have you. It would be nice if new article patrollers understood the point, though.

I'm sure every admin can hash up examples of such articles - I've rejected three articles on Jamaican Federal Elections, one on a Haitian Presidental Election and one on the Cuisine of San Marino in the last two weeks or so, of the top of my head. Who's going through articles thinking "Haitian Presidential Election? Doesn't sound notable or encyclopaedic ... " ?

And that is why the delete button is only available to admins. If more people were capable of correctly determining whether or not an article should be speedied, more people could be given the delete button. While it would be nice if new article patrollers would tag things correctly, it's not a serious problem. The speedy deletion procedure is designed to compensate for people that don't know what is and isn't speediable by requiring an admin to make the final decision.

On 30/09/2007, Michael Noda <michael.noda(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think that would be lovely. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 30/09/2007, Thatcher131 Wikipedia <thatcher131(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed. If we are concerned about misuse of A7, one way to motivate > people to change would be to leave notes for the taggers (with an > indelible edit summary "Improper use of A7" or some such that can't be > "archived") and then make it a point of discussion at RFA. A small > thing like that might leverage a big change in behavior.

Alerting them to the existence of prod may be more effective. Part of the problem is the comparatively high amount of effort required to carry out an AFD.

On 9/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Considering most of the A7s I saw were bot-assisted and the extra > labour in a proper AFD is mostly clerical, bot-assisting the AFD > should be quite feasible as well.

Already available via WP:TW. It makes AfD entirely too easy--click a button, type your nomination reason, boom boom boom, it's all properly posted in the space of about 15 seconds.

Bot assisted afds are way overdue--not all of us can use the various existing programs. It should be built into WP,.

On 01/10/2007, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote: I remember discussing this with at least one developer at some point. It should be doable in a way that doesn't hardcode the English Wikipedia's policies - or so I'm told. I wasn't convinced - I think people are so used to the policies that they don't realise when they are assuming them.

No, that's not what I mean at all. People were talking about how to automate the deletion process and were coming up with methods that would require people to do their deletions in the same (or similar) ways as the English Wikipedia. People didn't realise that they were implicitly assuming that deletions would be taking place according to enwiki policy.

Charlotte Webb wrote: Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar, even when logged out. Is this all done locally?

On 10/1/07, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote: That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and included in common.js on Commons. We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it would be a bad idea. —C.W. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 10/1/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: sidebar, Out of curiosity... (my test MW wiki is off right now or I'd try this...) If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event does not show up on the watchlist, correct? I'm inclined to think that this is a bug... -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

One admittedly clumsy way to handle this is to make a separate user subpage with links to the articles you want to track, preferably using the [[:article]] code with the colon so the backlink is not made, and to check it regularly for links newly going red. On 10/1/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It doesn't. It really isn't a bug, a watchlist is supposed to show edits > made to pages, not log entries. However, I can see why you wish this > feature would be added to the watchlist, but it's not a bug. :-) > > On 10/1/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/1/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > why would it be a bad idea? Because people would delete too much? Or > > > that they would not use the simper process of PROD as a first resort? > > > I;m much more concerned of their using Speedy as a all-purpose resort. > > > > > > On 10/1/07, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/1/07, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Commons manages to have a "nominate for deletion" link in the > > sidebar, > > > > > even when logged out. Is this all done locally? > > > > > > > > That goes to nfd_nomForDel() which is defined at > > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js and > > > > included in common.js on Commons. > > > > > > > > We could *easily* make something exactly like this (to "AFD this > > > > article") available to everybody on en.wikipedia but I really think it > > > > would be a bad idea. > > > > Out of curiosity... (my test MW wiki is off right now or I'd try this...) > > > > If someone deletes an article on your watchlist, the deletion event > > does not show up on the watchlist, correct? > > > > I'm inclined to think that this is a bug...

On 10/1/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: Wait, you want to create a separate page to see if items in your watchlist are red? Just use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&action=edit

One admittedly clumsy way to handle this is to make a separate user subpage with links to the articles you want to track, preferably using the [[:article]] code with the colon so the backlink is not made, and to check it regularly for links newly going red.

(Other tricks this is handy for - when creating an article, write a list of all the variant names for it at the bottom, preview, create redirects from all those handy redlinks, delete the redlinks from the article, save, and you're all done.)

Yes, watchlisting only shows edits to a page, not "non-edit actions" (delete, move, protect)

I usually don't deal with deletion topics, so please tell me if this is already done, but could the automated tools (I'm thinking Twinkle, here) leave a note on a tagger's talk page if an admin decides that a CSD tag is in error? Erroneous CSD tags seems like a good thing to keep track of, especially compared to the stats that actually do get mentioned at RFAs (not that I'm in favor of making RFA any harder, just that it might be an indicator of judgment.)

Is there anything wrong with setting a time limit of say, 60 minutes, on speedy deletions, so an article can be tagged, but the author has another 60 minutes to finish editing the article, and if it's still not notable after they've been working on it, it can go. Obviously, the dubious attack crap and gibberish would be exempt, but everything else would be covered.

... but the author has another 60 minutes to finish editing the article, and if it's still not notable...

Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.

Non-admins don't (generally) know how to do admin work. If they did, they'd be admins.

Wow! What a series of non-sequiturs. I'm not an admin after 5 1/2 years because I have never sought the power. Deletion is an admin task, but it doesn't exactly take a lot of training to push the right keys to delete something. If you add in the social and equitable aspects to deletions it becomes clear that a lot of admins don't know how to do it correctly either.

On 01/10/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: A7-tagged, certainly, but how about A7-deleted? Non-admins don't (generally) know how to do admin work. If they did, they'd be admins.

Lack of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of *assertion* of notability is. You can assert notability in 60 minutes quite easily.

On 10/1/07, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote: True. But I thought lack of importance wasn't a valid reason for nonspeedy deletion. If so, that's pretty weird. What's an assertion of importance? "Joe is important"?

A7 has nothing to do with context. There is another criterion (don't remember the number) that deals precisely with that.

Thomas Dalton wrote: Lack of assertion of notability is *not* a speedy criterion. Lack of assertion of *importance* is. What is an assertion of notability anyway? "Multiple independent reliable sources discuss Joe"?

In my experience, the biggest problems with notability deletions (both A7 and via proposed deletion) is that so many (mostly new) users feel blindsided by them. The interface doesn't do an adequate job of making clear what is expected from a new article (e.g., all information is verifiable from reliable published sources, information on living people is explicitly referenced, the article explains why the topic is significant). In the end, I think that is a much bigger problem than the actual loss of marginal content that ends up deleted (nearly all of which is unreferenced, even if the subject is actually meets notability requirements). That content really shouldn't be in Wikipedia (at least in the form that got deleted), but new users are not made aware of that ahead of time. Our standards have changed so much over the last year and a half or so that I think we need a much heavier-handed interface for guiding new users through the article creation process.

On 01/10/2007, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote: Your task: 1. Write this interface. 2. People don't read. How few words can you put it in? Can you be as harsh as the new articles page for IPs on Meta?