330:: The solution to vandalistic placements is the same as the solution to any vandalism -- revert. In the event that this becomes too problematic (as when revert wars develop with multiple editors on both sides), just leaving the debate in inappropriate categories would not do very much harm. Putting a deletion in an obscure category, in an effort to hide it from debate, is unlikely to be successful. As long as we keep a central list (whether in the form of the present VfD daily log, or as a non-transcluded list), it should be easy to spot such problems. Since any user can add the deletion to a new category, the placement problem can be solved the instant it is noticed. (That's the Wiki way!)
315:: Have standard one-line templates (implemented using subst) so that people reading the debate can quickly see in what categories it has been placed, by who, and when. Anyone visiting a debate can place it in a category they consider appropriate, by adding the appropriate template as a "Comment" line. Have a category "Deletions needing sorting" (possibly identical with the main deletion category), which could be regularly patrolled by deletion nuts such as ourselves. (That would be the long-term purpose of this WikiProject, in fact.)
31:
96:. At present they are sorted by type, topic, and place. In addition, through the existing VfD/TfD/CfD process, we sort currently deletions by namespace (partially) and by date. These are both useful structures. At one time they sufficiently subdivided deletion debates, but this is no longer the case. However, we certainly shouldn't do away with them. So perhaps an ideal categorization system would sort nominations in five ways:
341:: That's already a serious problem with the current VfD community (present company excluded). Average editors with an interest in topic X are much more likely to pay attention to a short topical list of deletions than they are to sift through the nearly-100 daily entries on the VfD log. That's why topical deletion lists are cropping up all over (even though they're a pain to maintain), and have even been included on the
302:. However, if there were separate Islam and Christianity categories, obviously an article like "Abuse of Christians by Islam" would belong in both. Of course, even in good faith relevant categories will be left out by the nominator. Let's see -- I think we have three possible problems here, let's go through them:
473:
I am of the belief that: There should still be a comprehensive (ie. day-by-day account) list of VfD to which nominators post their VfD. It should be made easy for someone to nominate an article if they can back it up. Beyond that it should fall to an admin chore or interested editor (like myself) to
376:
Well, I don't think it's a large amount of work. I've been sorting VfDs into a rather complicated schema for about 2 weeks now, and I find that I can generally sort all 100-plus daily entries in less than an hour (imperfectly, to be sure). That said, I think
Radiant's suggestion below is probably
179:
If we're going to categorize deletions, it makes sense to consider all different types of content for deletion, including categories and templates as well as articles. Doesn't it? What about images and other media? Could image deletions be categorized as well, or should they be kept separate as
114:
By topic: The core of the categorized-deletion proposal, this would give editors with an interest in a specific area of coverage the opportunity to participate in relevant deletion discussions, without trudging through the wasteland of VfD. However, we need clear criteria for what does and doesn't
601:
with the intent that users can then copy the line from the topic page and paste straight into the AfD page. This seems to work for places like
Australia and Oceania where the first parameter is exactly the same as the page name. It may break for /Music (parameter is music with a lowercase 'm') and
118:
By place: Really a specialized form of "by topic." There are lots of regional
Wikipedian communities and projects, and lots of interest in improving Knowledge (XXG) coverage of country/region X. Thus it makes sense to categorize nominations by place whenever possible. Personally, I would favor
565:
and move as many items as you want to your section (as I have done). Then sort them out, convert and upload. The deletions for each closed deletion log will be moved to /Ready, and kept there until they have been uploaded to the appropriate lists. (note that some of the redlinks are illusory--
183:
The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to leave out images and redirects, while including templates and categories. Templates and categories, like articles, need to have some clear content, some assertion of encyclopedic merit, or they are candidates for speedy deletion. That doesn't
463:
Yes, you definitely have a point. Ideally I'd like to see a mix of both approaches. Perhaps we could have five-or-so main categories -- maybe arts & culture, science, geography, internet -- with nominators expected to place their nomination in one. Sorting into more precise categories and
440:
I think this idea has merit, but the current system of dozens of categories is too complicated. Nominators wouldn't be aware of which categories existed, and would frequently misfile a nomination. Voters would have to check dozens of lists to find the topics they want. If I may suggest something
198:
Categorized deletion won't work unless there are well-maintained lists to go along with it. I gather than the closest thing to a dynamic list on
Knowledge (XXG) is Special:Whatlinkshere, which unfortunately is pretty lame. What we really need (I think) are transcluded topical lists for each
213:. I would create a list about a more active topic, but in the present climate I'm afraid it would be deleted. At least this area is one where I am genuinely active and have already been maintaining a deletion list. Thus, I hope no one will accuse me of trying to make a disruptive
106:
By type: certain kinds of content -- people, schools, websites, etc. -- turn up commonly enough in deletion debates to merit special categories. Most such types are already receiving special attention, in the form of efforts at establishing bodies of precedent (such as
490:
Too complicated indeed, at least in its current form. This would work as an adjuct to another deletion system for those who wish to optionally participate. However, I do not think this should be considered in any way as a primary replacement for AfD. Supplement,
557:, and I haven't really had time to work on any other aspects of this project. Meanwhile, VfD keeps getting bigger... So I have a two-part request: 1. If you have an interest in the broader goals of this project, such as categorized deletion (see
232:
How do you prevent someone deliberately putting a VFD into an inappropriate category so that they can get the result they want by deliberately dis-including knowledgable editors. This is particularly an issue on controversial areas - e.g.
361:"Have a category "Deletions needing sorting" (possibly identical with the main deletion category), which could be regularly patrolled by deletion nuts such as ourselves. (That would be the long-term purpose of this WikiProject, in fact.)"
411:
Sorting fiction/webfiction/Tv/film is difficult, especially since deletion-ready articles often don't provide enough information to distinguish them. An umbrella category would help. (Maybe "Popular culture", rather than the current
418:
Discussions on CfD and TfD (and for that matter RfD and IfD) cannot be included at present. They are not placed on subpages, so we can't transclude or categorize them. Pity. I've stopped surveying them for
602:
will probably break for /Songs and albums where the parameter is "individual songs or albums". Have I made a bad change, or should these parameters all get chased down and fixed to match the pagename? --
496:
79:
71:
66:
184:
seem to apply to images and redirects (which by their nature have no content). Thus, trying to categorize IfD and RfD is probably much more trouble than it's worth. Thoughts? --
275:
You also have the converse problem of POV warriors patrolling their subject area, but more normal editors not paying so much attention to them. Both these issues need resolving.
199:
category, containing all present (and perhaps past) deletions in that category. Creating such lists is easy. How can we ensure that these lists are kept up to date? --
335:
3. POV warriors are always going to pay more attention to deletion than the rest of us, because it gives them exactly the kind of contentious debate they get off on.
524:
478:
475:
324:
of deletions in inappropriate cats, either as spam or in an effort to obscure debate. This is highly likely with problem contributors, of which we have quite a few.
407:
However, I have gotten some more perspective on the problems of deletion sorting. Here are some issues I'm thinking over, regarding the draft structure at /Blank:
562:
554:
401:
299:
93:
47:
17:
237:
being put into the
Christianity section so that it is kept by editors interested in Christianity, rather than the Islam section. Or someone moving a VFD for
616:
While this is a good idea and I have been tagging the entries for
Australia, where could I or other users find a list so that entries in AfD can be tagged.
400:
I've now plowed through several hundred deletion debates and deletion-ready articles, as I have now finished the 4th day of the 10-day survey recorded at
558:
535:
I think I've added a note to most of the relevant boards. If you notice one that I've missed, please feel free to add a note there too as well. --
119:
creating categories for any country or US state that ever has related content on VfD (which is to say, pretty much every country and US state).
159:
158:
We could, but for the most part I don't think they would get enough traffic to be worthwhile. Actually, most of those items come to VfD from
365:
I think with that you run the risk of instruction creep, in that this requires somebody to actively maintain and sort entries, thus making
210:
474:
sort them. Categories should be simple and obvious (ie. music, people). Relevant VfD should be posted on all active notice boards (ie.
404:. Between the bad articles and the bad-faith nominations, I'm about ready for a chat with Ralph on the porcelain telephone. Ā :-(
246:
250:
620:
606:
573:
561:, please take the lead and formulate something. 2. If you'd like to help out with the deletion lists, please go to
539:
510:
485:
468:
430:
385:
349:
292:
270:
221:
203:
188:
166:
149:
127:
464:
transcluded lists could be done (or not done) by other editors, as the spirit moved them. How does that sound? --
38:
234:
422:
We should endeavor to keep the category structure no more than two levels deep, for ease of use and maintenance.
617:
345:. I believe that sorted deletion would actually increase the percentage of good-faith voters on VfD. --
238:
584:
284:
262:
280:
258:
180:
they are at present? And what about redirects? RfD is so small, maybe we should just leave it alone.
108:
288:
266:
342:
146:
136:
449:
523:
How about putting a deletion entry at a related noticeboard? This seems to be quite natural, as
214:
298:
Good points. At present there is only a single proposed "Religion and philosophy" category in
528:
492:
162:. It would certainly be nice if Pages needing translation was categorized by language... --
381:
into 5-10 basic categories, and leave any additional sorting up to interested editors. --
370:
142:
100:
By namespace (Article, Template, Category, other): mostly already in place, non-contentious.
481:). VfD should also be sorted according to their justification (ie. nn, vanity, etc.). -
442:
603:
209:
I have now created a test list, although all but one item on it is already closed. See
507:
482:
309:
of deletions from categories in which they belong. This is inevitable to some extent.
446:
570:
536:
465:
427:
382:
346:
218:
200:
185:
163:
124:
253:
section to keep it as Admins are unlikely to be too concerned about that section.
441:
else... how about creating between five and ten categories total (like we do on
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
276:
254:
123:
How does this basic structure seem? Is it adequate? Does it go too far? --
503:
452:
242:
103:
By date: already in place within each system, presumably non-contentious.
591:{{subst:delsort|(name of this list)}} -- ~~~~"</nowiki: -->
415:
Trying to sort neologisms from other words is a waste of time.
25:
553:
I've ended up investing most of my time in maintaining the
598:{{subst:delsort|{{{1}}}}} -- ~~~~"</nowiki: -->
563:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ready
559:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting#Goals
525:Knowledge (XXG):Japanese Wikipedians' notice board
402:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beta
94:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beta
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting
527:, which I frequent, lists deletion votes. --
445:). E.g. "religion", "fiction", "people" etc.
369:work to go into processing a VfD nomination.
133:Could also have By Language (I've often seen
8:
245:section to get it kept. Or someone putting
247:Knowledge (XXG):Admins banned from voting
160:Knowledge (XXG):Pages needing translation
92:Please review the proposed categories at
251:obscure games and geographical locations
211:Knowledge (XXG):Korea-related deletions
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
579:my change to template:Deletionlist
24:
29:
566:please check before removing).
377:best: let deletions be sorted
1:
531:07:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
511:07:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
373:04:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
305:1. Accidental or deliberate
621:01:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
607:07:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
459:08:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
235:Abuse of Christians by Islam
574:00:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
540:00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
486:05:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
469:06:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
386:16:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
167:05:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
636:
431:13:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
350:11:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
293:20:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
271:20:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
222:12:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
204:09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
189:09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
150:15:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
128:09:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
115:merit a topical category.
109:Knowledge (XXG):Websites
583:I've made a change to
585:Template:Deletionlist
42:of past discussions.
519:Utilize noticeboards
497:Uncontested_deletion
343:WikiProject template
194:Lists and categories
612:Lists of categories
587:to change the line
476:Canada Notice Board
239:Jesus as a buddhist
618:Capitalistroadster
555:lists of deletions
499:?, sounds great.
339:Possible solutions
328:Possible solutions
313:Possible solutions
135:"this seams to be
88:Category structure
546:Help wanted, etc.
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
627:
597:"<nowiki: -->
590:"<nowiki: -->
457:
175:Unified deletion
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
635:
634:
630:
629:
628:
626:
625:
624:
614:
599:
592:
581:
548:
521:
454:
438:
436:Too complicated
398:
230:
196:
177:
90:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
633:
631:
613:
610:
596:
589:
580:
577:
550:Hi everybody,
547:
544:
543:
542:
520:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
479:and/or like so
471:
437:
434:
424:
423:
420:
416:
413:
397:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
333:
332:
331:
320:2. Deliberate
318:
317:
316:
229:
226:
225:
224:
195:
192:
176:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
153:
152:
121:
120:
116:
112:
104:
101:
89:
86:
83:
82:
77:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
632:
623:
622:
619:
611:
609:
608:
605:
595:
588:
586:
578:
576:
575:
572:
567:
564:
560:
556:
551:
545:
541:
538:
534:
533:
532:
530:
526:
518:
512:
509:
505:
502:
498:
494:
489:
488:
487:
484:
480:
477:
472:
470:
467:
462:
461:
460:
458:
451:
448:
444:
435:
433:
432:
429:
421:
417:
414:
410:
409:
408:
405:
403:
395:
387:
384:
380:
379:at nomination
375:
374:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
359:
358:
351:
348:
344:
340:
337:
336:
334:
329:
326:
325:
323:
319:
314:
311:
310:
308:
304:
303:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
227:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
202:
193:
191:
190:
187:
181:
174:
168:
165:
161:
157:
156:
155:
154:
151:
148:
144:
140:
138:
132:
131:
130:
129:
126:
117:
113:
110:
105:
102:
99:
98:
97:
95:
87:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
615:
600:
593:
582:
568:
552:
549:
522:
500:
439:
425:
406:
399:
378:
366:
360:
338:
327:
322:misplacement
321:
312:
306:
274:
231:
197:
182:
178:
134:
122:
91:
60:
43:
37:
604:Scott Davis
569:Thanks! --
371:Ćvilphoenix
36:This is an
145:, etc... -
137:Portuguese
493:Pure wiki
483:maclean25
412:"Arts"?).
249:into the
241:into the
80:ArchiveĀ 5
72:ArchiveĀ 3
67:ArchiveĀ 2
61:ArchiveĀ 1
307:omission
243:Buddhism
571:Visviva
537:Visviva
466:Visviva
428:Visviva
396:Updates
383:Visviva
347:Visviva
228:Problem
219:Visviva
201:Visviva
186:Visviva
164:Visviva
147:Mariano
143:Spanish
125:Visviva
39:archive
450:adiant
443:WP:RFC
456:|<
455:: -->
217:. --
215:point
16:<
529:Taku
504:here
419:now.
367:more
300:Beta
277:~~~~
255:~~~~
594:to
495:or
426:--
141:or
291:)
287:|
283:|
279:(
269:)
265:|
261:|
257:(
111:).
76:ā
508:ā
506:ā¦
501:ā“
453:_
447:R
289:*
285:?
281:!
267:*
263:?
259:!
139:"
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.