Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting Links at HealthHaven.com

[edit] Possibility of bringing external delsorts under this project.

I have started discussions at the two most active deletion sorts that I know of that are not under this project about the possibility of bringing one or both of them under this project. The discussions can be found here and here. The only other active deletion sorting project I know of that is outside WP:DELSORT is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football's main page. But that subject is already covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football, so that's a different situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people

I have to admit I can't really see the point of this page. Because ALL living people pages have Category:Living people on them, category intersection (e.g. [1]) works perfectly. But instead we have two bots, Erwin85Bot (talk · contribs) and my own the wubbot (talk · contribs), on an endless task adding and removing the debates from this page. Not to mention the many humans adding debates manually.

"Living people" is a far more populous topic than any of the other ones for deletion sorting. As well as making it harder to maintain, this also decreases its usefulness. When it was created (without any discussion IIRC) I had envisaged it as being limited to debates where BLP concerns played an important part. But that has clearly been thrown out the window. The sheer size of the page makes it slow to load, even when my bot is working properly. When it trips up (which I apologise for), the page can become unusable.

I really don't understand why we maintain this page, when category intersection is more up to date, more accurate, and involves less workload for users, bots and servers. Therefore I propose that it be replaced with a prominent link to the relevant category intersection. the wub "?!" 13:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, Wub. One interesting twist. With the page locked, User:Erwin85Bot cannot list new debates there. But it thinks it still can, and is still marking debates as listed there, even though they are not. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I now stopped it from running. As I don't use this page myself I don't feel I have a say in this. However, I do agree with Wub's assessment. It would make more sense to just use category intersection. --Erwin (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused on how Cat scan is the better link. It's listed alphabetically rather than by expiration, so if I want to go through and check which I've already voted in, or which are due to be closed, I've gotta click through all the links. Why is there an issue with simply archiving the page more often? لenna vecia 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So now we have a counter argument against the switch. I can see how having the list in chronological order can be a benefit. So where does that leave us? I see several possible paths forward:

Restore the page as it was, getting the bots to not glitch the page up if at all possible. (Old status quo)
Leave the page disabled, and rely on the intersection report going forward (new status quo)
Scrap the page entirely.
Something new. Scrap this page, but develop something better to replace it. Not totally sure what that could be, but I'm thinking something bot-created that is somehow based off of the category intersection thing, but formatted differently to address the concerns.

Those are the possibilities that occur to me. Not really sure which way I'm leaning, I more just wanted to prod this discussion forward. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple more comments while I'm on the subject. Looking at the intersection report, I see a lot fewer items on it than I would have expected. This is likely because the Living People cat is still far from fully in place. Many articles of obviously living people go up for deletion that are not in the category. So if the category is to be a full representation as much as possible of living people AFDs, an the intersection report falls short of that. When we had people manually listing debates into the category, it was easy enough to list things not in the category if it was likely that the article was of a living person. The intersection report cannot make such judgments.

But the report as-was is problematic. It's sheer size when fully reported is unwieldy. So here is a thought for a possible "Something new". Something of a cross between what we had before, and what we have now. At the core, the idea is a page of listed debates, added to regularly by bot and person, but for this one delsort page wre remove the transclusion, and just list the debate links. We have a visible format a lot like the intersection report, where you just have a list of links, not a wall of debates. But the human listing can resume, and the page can again be in chronological order. It's a raw idea, in need of development, but I think it might be the basis for a compromise. How does this idea sound to people? - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File for deletion

Is it possible to use this Wikiproject to list a file for deletion? I would like to list this debate on the politics list. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion

While I'm here, is it possible to have a template generated from these pages which interested people can transclude onto their userpages, in the way that I have done for Signpost, for instance. This might list the current deletion discussions on the selected topics - a bit like the contents page for the individual topics? AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advisement wording about advertising and puppets

Near the top of the article is an advisement that includes

"It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias in order to strengthen one side of a debate."
"It is also considered[who?] highly inappropriate[Need citation] to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia."

I tagged it with who? and need-cite as it's not explained in detail in the article body nor does it link to articles that would explain these. For example, under sorting-authors I recently spotted an author who writes science fiction and so cross linked that under sorting-science-fiction. Is that "advertising" an AfD and how would someone decide if that my advertising was a devious method of support for a keep/delete for an AfD? People have left notes on my talk page asking me to comment on AfDs that I may be interested in. Are there any existing policies/guidelines related to this?

The part about puppets is a little clearer as it links to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which is WP policy. I only tagged it as its wording needs a little tuning and when the first sentence gets cleaned up that'll be the time to tune the second sentence so that the two sentences work and flow together. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've resolved this - It turned out the quoted wording I was commenting on was from December 2006. I've copy/pasted in the current wording from Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which is better. I also saw that as it's WP:POLICY then the who that considers advertising highly inappropriate is policy itself.

[edit] Problem

I've noticed this problem a lot when a soccer or association football player AfD is opened, someone will come along and list it here because they believe football means Association football when it means American football. Not sure what can be done since I've seen multiple users do this, but just figured a heads up could put a stop to this.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Guess this project isn't as active as I thought...--Giants27 (c|s) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of relisted AFD debates

You might like Wikipedia:Coordination/afdrelists, which is updated every hour. —harej (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chodaczkow Wielki massacre

[edit] Opt-out of deletion sorting?

How do I opt my AFD nominations out of deletion sorting? Too often I have seen these used as, essentially, a method of votestacking. An AFD should get a good cross-section of the Wikipedia community, but deletion sorting lets them be dominated by the same incestuous bunch that failed to clean up the crap in the first place. *** Crotalus *** 17:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to calarify you don't want editors interested in the article to find you AfDs? do you own the AfD's you start? --Nate ^t/_c 08:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Short answer is you can't. My experience with deletion sorting doesn't match yours at all, so I wonder if it's a particular area that's a problem, the types of articles you are nominating, or if you are using the same kind of uncivil language in AfDs that you're using here?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard

I would like to set up deletion sorting for Eastern European project/topics. How can I do that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we already have lists for the individual countries, you can find them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact#Europe. Then you could transclude them into one Eastern Europe page linked from your noticeboard to keep track of them all at once. the wub "?!" 09:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are topics that affect multiple countries, and so they would be transcluded multiple times. Here's an example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in the West. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking help

I noticed this eidt while watching recent changes and thought it needed reverting since it blanked much information. However, I'm not familiar with the project or its discussions so I'm bringing the matter here for informed feedback. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 04:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit has been reverted, so no emergency. Thanks Tiderolls 05:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request new category

Greetings, I know that our project isn't as active as others, but I was wondering if Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans could have its own delete sorting category, maybe under the main category of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents