Forums: Index War Room AfD revamp
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Please read the entirety of the paragraphs below, I have made important changes to the design of the proposed page

The Articles for Deletion page gets into a real mess when it's not tended to. It took me about 45 minutes to close and archive it, because it got in such a mess. For an idea look here → Call of Duty Wiki:Articles for Deletion/Archive 9

So, I think we should format Articles for Deletion in the same way as requests for adminiship, it would make everything so much easier to vote on, close, and archive. Putting it straight to a vote... comments can go in the comments section.

I made a prototype page here. Also, check out the quick nominate button on that page, it should make your lives easier should this "complex" redesign go through. I've also made a prototype discussion page in Project:Articles for Deletion/User:Azuris.

I had a stroke of genius and remembered a way to make lists of pages automatically - no one needs to add to the box at the bottom any more - look here.


Pictogram voting support Support — As nominator --Callofduty4 19:50, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Yeah it's getting really messy now... Smuff[citation provided] 19:52, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Weak Support — Even though I think the idea's overcomplex for something which should be comparatively simple, it's the lesser of two evils. YuriKaslov 19:53, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Much better than the current system. TheDocRichtofen 20:52, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Weak Support — Overcomplicating a relatively simple procedure, but things usually get messy. elmo's Elmo 150px ramblings 20:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

How is it more simple than say, RfAs? You're still simply providing a vote... it's exactly the same procedure. --Callofduty4 20:12, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Because you can just put in a new heading and write your reasoning. Whereas, you need to create a subpage, navigate back and forth, and add links to the main AfD page anyway. The voting is only 1/3rd the process. YuriKaslov 20:13, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Well that will encourage people to think through their AfDs first, rather than just posting one of the top of their heads. Smuff[citation provided] 20:54, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
But it could also have the reciprocal effect of making people not nominate articles that actually need to be deleted. YuriKaslov 20:55, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Well that would just be laziness on their part then. Smuff[citation provided] 20:56, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — While newer users may be more biased toward the old method, I think this would be a positive change. I hate seeing discussions for pages being overlooked because of their age alone. Shotrocket6 Talk 02:42, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — Me Gusta. Nice work Cod4 Major Blackout 15:52, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Strong Support — Yeah, why not. I like it, and the page needs a clean-up. Nikolai Cannot Die 06:38, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Strong Support — Per all supports. let us give it a try Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 07:46, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support — It looks a lot simpler too. N7 Personal N7 Awesome face bigger 12:10, February 19, 2011 (UTC)


Pictogram voting neutral Neutral leaning towards Support — While I do agree with Scottie, I think this could benefit the page. Undecided. Doctor Richtoffee Talk 16:15, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting neutral Neutral — Wile the AFD needs a change, I don't believe that it should change to be like the RfA. What it needs to be is, like Scottie said, tended to more often. It needs to have the regulations changed, not the entire system. I'm thinking like stays up for a week, 2 weeks max, short, to the point reasoning, and quick ending. This is not rocket science. US Army OF-2 Rambo362 US Army OF-201:57, February 16, 2011 (UTC)


Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Far too complicated for what should be a simple(ish) process. Sgt. S.S. 20:24, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to oppose this because it's "too complicated"? Quit being lazy and do something which makes an improvement. All this is, is voting. RfAs are on separate pages, and that's just voting as well! I can even make a box where you type in a page, click submit, and it makes the page for you, if you're going to be so lazy and frankly disrespectful to oppose this because it makes something a million times better at the expense of being slightly more complex. --Callofduty4 20:33, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
What if, rather than voting, I want to start an AfD of my own? Why should I have to go through the long, tedious process of making a subpage, laying out the code so the subpage appears on the RfA page, and link all that to the article I want deleted, instead of making a simple subheading? Sgt. S.S. 21:08, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
It would encourage you to actually think over the AfD rather than just posting it after one quick thought. Smuff[citation provided] 21:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
I can still think over an AfD with the current system, and I always do think over an AfD. Your point? Sgt. S.S. 21:13, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
While you may, there are many other users who hang around in the AfD page who may not. Smuff[citation provided] 21:16, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
So? If they want to make a rubbish nomination and embarrass themselves, that's their prerogative. Sgt. S.S. 21:18, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
"So?" isn't a valid argument. It shouldn't be such an inconvenience that it causes you to drop what you're doing altogether, if it does the AfD mustn't be that important. And they're more than welcome to do so. Smuff[citation provided] 21:21, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
"So?" isn't a valid argument. The rest of his post was. --Scottie theNerd 10:30, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — I'm in general agreement with the notion of complicating what is supposed to be a simple process. It's not hard to follow the new listing, but I don't see why we really need to change it. AfDs become messy because nominations -- which should only last for a week -- are left for a month or over. Before our previous cleanup projects, some AfDs were left for up to 6 months before any action was taken. Callofduty4's rationale for the proposal is that the "Articles for Deletion page gets into a real mess when it's not tended to". The solution is to tend to it more often rather than make a different page. If lack of attention is a problem (and it shouldn't, given we have a fair number of admins), the new listing will not address the issue and threatens to bury untended and stagnant AfDs instead of cleaning them. Basically, I don't think the proposed format will make things any easier; and the better solution is to avoid letting the page grow to that size by being firmer with the one-week discussion deadline. --Scottie theNerd 10:20, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

A one-week discussion deadline would be even easier to enforce if each nomination was on a separate page, and it would be easier to archive as well, because the nature of separate pages allows for neat listing on the main AfD page, as well as a neat discussion on the discussion pages. I've been the only person archiving the AfD page for some time now, and while I'll keep on doing it if I have to, at the moment it's actually very time-consuming to archive the page, considering about 75% of AfDs aren't closed until I come along and close them as I archive the page. I don't really see how making separate pages for AfD discussions is more complex, all it is is spacing the discussions out into their separate entities to allow for easier archiving and voting. --Callofduty4 14:14, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
It may be easier, I could agree, but ease isn't the problem. If you're the only one who checks and archives the page, there's clearly something very wrong with the admin team's work ethic and administrative activity. All the listing in the world won't make a difference if admins don't bother doing their duties, and I speak from experience. Back when I was admin on PvXwiki, we had a rather simple listing that, conveniently enough, used templates that automatically added the time stamps to all build submissions. It was extremely reliant on admins making timely cleanups given the nature of the site -- dozens of build articles had to be tagged, categorised, tagged for deletion after a 2-week period and finally deleted. If any of those tasks were left for a few days, the backlog could stretch to 200+ articles that needed to be deleted. Considering we had a rather small team of 10 or so admins, we fared rather well with the menial labour of getting through all pages. Now, CODwiki has one AfD page that has an average of approximately five articles nominated every month. It can't be that hard for any admin to check once a week to see which discussions are active or expired, and I do believe that if admins don't check the current AfD page, a new AfD page won't address that issue. Admins need to be more active in handling the routine tasks rather than waiting for users to harass them on talk pages and IRC. --Scottie theNerd 21:29, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
Last month we had quite a lot more than 5 articles nominated. And if the number really is that low, then surely there can't be much wrong with lengthening the nomination process slightly? I don't see how it's really so much more complex, all it is is making a separate page (which can be done with the little submission box I made, which even inserts a pre-made template into the page) and then listing it in a pretty simple fashion on the main page. I do not comprehend how that is so extraordinarily complex that we shouldn't introduce this proposed system. --Callofduty4 22:36, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not opposing on the basis of "extraordinary complexity". It's not complex, and I agree with you. However, it's a complex solution to a simple problem. Admins aren't checking the AfD page. Instead of making a new page, get admins to check the AfDs frequently. It's not extraordinarily hard for an admin to click on the AfD page and archive it every week or so. If we're changing the page to make it cleaner and easier to archive, great; fantastic idea. But if we're making the change to address the "mess" and that it takes you 45 minutes to clean up, as initially presented in the proposal, it's not clear how the new page will address that problem if admins don't check it in the first place. After all, the AfD page isn't the only part of the site that gets ignored. Proposals in the War Room go dry for months as well, and that's using a page listing layout very similar to the proposal. --Scottie theNerd 06:18, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
That's also due to failure to check the War Room on the administrators' part, but imagine if we had grouped all of these pages onto one big page, even more neglect to close forum topics would occur. I think I also know of a way to make adding new AfDs to the main page automatic, should this topic pass, which would cut down on the complexity. I'll test it on my sandbox. --Callofduty4 13:42, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
I've made the table at the bottom page fully automatic, no one needs to add to it any more - look here. --Callofduty4 13:55, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
It's a nice improvement, but I feel that my contention hasn't been addressed comprehensively. You can make a listing as clear and pretty as you like, but it's no good if no one checks it. Admins are failing to check basic processes on the site -- AfDs the least of them. I hate to say it, but it's a sign of shoddy incompetence if a team of 10+ admins of varying levels can't get at least one person to check one page out of many at least once a week. It leads me to ask what admins are doing whenever they go on the wiki, because banning vandals isn't the only thing that admins should be doing. I refer again to my experiences on PvXwiki, where we didn't have the luxury of a War Room to discuss wiki changes and all admin-related issues were posted on a single noticeboard, varying from character build problems to abuse towards other users. Even though the page was larger, a smaller team of admins was able to keep up with regular site maintenance. Why can't our admin team do the same with the simpler wiki issue of article deletions? We have to be honest and address the heart of the problem before making changes like this. --Scottie theNerd 08:05, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Considering that I'm proposing this, it should be implied that I'm willing to monitor this page and close the nominations. As I've said before I'm the only person who's been closing AfDs, and to be honest it doesn't take more than one person to close them. If you want to address this issue further, please feel free to bring it up in another war room topic. --Callofduty4 18:47, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
If it only takes one person to monitor the page, why hasn't 10+ admins managed to clean up a single page? You proposed this, listing as one of your reasons, that the page gets messy and it's time-consuming to deal with. If the current page was checked regularly, it wouldn't get messy nor would it be time-consuming. I re-assert that the proposal does not save time or effort and is primarily a visual change --Scottie theNerd 12:58, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
To sum up my long argument, the rationale of the proposal, to me, seems to be this: "The page was a mess because no one else checked it, so we should have a new page because it looks neater". That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but others may see otherwise. --Scottie theNerd 13:04, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Don't ask me why they don't, I have no idea. As I mentioned above, if you feel there needs to be a discussion on administrator's duties, feel free to bring it up. This isn't meant to be a visual change, it was designed in such a way to improve the AfD procedure by splitting nominations into subpages. The way I designed it on my sandbox was to make both listing the nominations automatic, but also automatically listing archived nominations. In fact, it runs in the exact same fashion as the war room, you stick in a forum name in a little box, click the button, write the forum and click save. From there on it's all automatic, and not very complex whatsoever. I still believe that splitting AfDs into subpages would help users to vote on nominations they want to specifically want to vote on, and help administrator(s) close and archive nominations when they finish. I simply used "45 minutes to close" as an example of a problem that would be addressed should this forum pass. --Callofduty4 13:09, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
And I've simply pointed out that this doesn't address that issue. That's all I'm saying. I oppose this proposal because it doesn't address the problem you just highlighted as an example. Whatever else the change brings may or may not be good (and IMO, our War Room isn't exactly the prime example of getting things done either). Simply, you brought up the issue of effort and time as part of the rationale, with your anecdotal evidence, and I do not believe that this change properly addresses the matter of page neglect on the part of admins. Your "45 minute" problem is not addressed by having a new page; it's completely averted by admins actually going through their tasks more than once in a while. At the same time, I find Smuff's accusation of concerned users being "lazy" is horrendously ironic given that this problem is caused by our admin team.
You don't have to keep on suggesting me to make a new thread. I'm not interested in starting another thread in the War Room that will sit for a month without further activity. No one's interested in another rant from me. --Scottie theNerd 13:57, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

That's not true, if you have something to say, say it, it doesn't matter if other people are interested or not, people will come across it and read it. Anyway, if this problem with admin laziness is to stay, we might as well make it easier for the administrators who actually want to get routine procedures done. I can't comprehend how separate pages makes things harder, and I can't comprehend how separate pages don't make things easier. --Callofduty4 14:11, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

And I can't comprehend how a bunch of admins can't check a single page as it is. We're not going to break this deadlock anytime soon. --Scottie theNerd 15:06, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you, it's rather bizarre that no one can be bothered to check the page, and I agree that if we sorted out who checks the page, then the problem may be alleviated. But if we also introduce this change, I believe that there will be even further improvement in the AfD process. --Callofduty4 15:27, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — I don't believe that AFD here requires separate subpages. It simply requires timely closing on the part of the admins, and subpaging really doesn't do much to fix that. If we had a large volume of nominations (e.g. Wikipedia-volume) flooding in everyday, then a bunch of transclusions would make the page much easier to scroll through. That's the utility of subpaging. So in this respect, it's a solution to a nonexistent problem. As for the vote thing, I'm fine with that. I think that it reflects the style of this Wiki more. bibliomaniac15 07:44, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

The voting changes seem to already be put in place, credit Bovell for these changes. --Callofduty4 18:47, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment Comment — I've updated Callofduty4's AfD template to make it more straightforward and relevant to the AfD process. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 23:54, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Nice changes, thankyou. --Callofduty4 02:46, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — @Smuff: I don't understand your rationality. Making an editing process longer and arguably more complicated doesn't make people think more about what they're doing. It deters people from performing necessary actions and makes it a pain for editors who frequently go through it. We've never had a problem with masses of editors making rubbish AfDs, so clearly there's no reason to make the process more difficult. If we're really concerned about editors doing unthoughtful things, we should require that every editor solve a 5x5 Rubik's Cube before they are allowed to edit. Basic wiki functions should be simple and accessible as possible; not complex because a certain part of the userbase wants it to be more exclusive from editors of less experience, patience or competence. --Scottie theNerd 10:29, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously if the user is deterred by it then the nomination mustn't be that important. And we wouldn't be the only wiki that does it, Uncyclopedia does it using a much more complex template and it works perfectly well. Smuff[citation provided] 10:34, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about the complexity of the template or its functionality. I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument: actions can be important even if a user is deterred. Just because an editor doesn't want to go through the process doesn't mean it isn't important. A lot of edits need to be made on mainspace articles, for example, but a lot of readers can't be bothered registering accounts or going through the hassle of learning wikicode. It doesn't mean editing is any less important, and labeling users who do otherwise as "lazy" is quite insulting.
For example, we have an undefined procedure for making changes to or proposing new policies. Look at how we got rid of Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity and adopted COD:NOTABLE. It was a matter of posting on the policy talk page -- no one looked there. I had to make several topics criticising and raising discussion on the faults of the old policy, which took a month to get enough people to contribute. I wrote a 2000+ word rationale behind the proposed change, plus further comments to refine the proposed COD:N policy. Bovell finally wrote up the new policy, when we finally had a vote. It took nearly half a year, and in the months leading up to it, I really could not be bothered to go through all that. Does that mean the need to change and refine policies is not "that" important?
It's not particularly relevant to this discussion, but I find your contention of "IF important DO whatever it takes ELSE lazy" to be inaccurate, unfair and demeaning; especially when a lot of effort from editors goes towards making the wiki experience more streamlined and easier to get into.
On the Uncyclopedia note, that wiki is much larger, more organised and better-run than CODwiki. If we can't keep track of a simple page listing, making a more complex template doesn't seem to magically solve the apparently problem. --Scottie theNerd 10:48, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was referring to here. Shotrocket6 Talk 11:21, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
DO NOT bring RfAs into War Room discussions. Forums are not the place for you to try making a point. Smuff[citation provided] 11:26, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
You may want to rephrase that as it makes little sense whatsoever. Shotrocket6 Talk 11:35, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
Rephrase what? Scottie made perfect sense of it and was able to make a several paragraph long response, so tell me what you aren't getting and I'll try to explain it in as simple a way as I can. Smuff[citation provided] 11:37, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, the forums are precisely the place where points are made. I'm sensing animosity, so I'm throwing in a reminder to assume good faith. --Scottie theNerd 11:40, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
"Forums are not the place for you to try making a point." Shotrocket6 Talk 11:41, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to use wiki code too well, and I don't want to make templates just to put up a page for deletion, even if it is important. It does to be making a simple process complicated. --Conquerer of all Zombies Talk 02:11, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

There are no templates, seriously try out the submission box on this page. Adding the page to the table at the bottom is easy - just follow the same format as the ones above.--Callofduty4 02:34, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
It's now fully automatic, all you need to do is use the box to create a page. --Callofduty4 13:56, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — Just an observation on the proposed deletion pages. I'm not a big fan of the redundant "Keep/Delete" headings for one (just as I don't see the point of having Support/Oppose headings if everyone is already stating their contention using the template). However, I'd like to see the removal of the Split/Merge section, as that is not a regular part of article deletions and will be unused for typical cases. Merging, on most wikis, is a separate process or otherwise a by-product of a deletion discussion. On that note, emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that pages like AfD are based on discussion and not just a vote. While COD:CONSENSUS is applicable, it's important to retain the discussion and that the points raised in the discussion can and, if appropriate, should overule the majority based on admin verdict. --Scottie theNerd 08:12, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well we can change it so it's more like First-past-the-post voting, instead of having consensus we could just take the option that has the most votes, that should allow for the Split/Merge section to fit in properly. Remember people can still voice their opinions with the new templates, so that should easily be a viable option. Smuff[citation provided] 18:35, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be a vote. Deletion pages should always be based on reason and discussion, not based on the number of votes. The actual number of votes may be a factor, but it's common on wikis that the reasons for deletion are considered and not the number of proponents or opponents. Wikipedia makes it very clear on its deletion pages that it they are not votes. Strictly following FPTP voting or consensus (which isn't appropriately worded) means that the majority can vote for a stupid and nonsensical topic and overrule a single, rational point made against it. There is, of course, COD:IAR, but we can't invoke it every time it happens. If it all comes down to a vote, there's no reason to bother with comments and users should just sign their names like a petition. There's nothing wrong with having a simple heading under which users add their comments preceded by Delete, Keep or Split/Merge without bothering with half a dozen sub-headings. --Scottie theNerd 12:58, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
It is not a vote. COD:CONSENSUS explicitly states that we do not follow a majority rules system, and that discussion results are determined by a neutral administrator. If this isn't happening, then that is another one of the many problems that our AfD page currently has.
As for the merge sub-heading, we usually get most of our requests to merge from the AfD page. Unless we create an "Articles for Merging," there is no other appropriate place other than an administrator's talk page to start discussion about merging an article. The War Room is not the place to do it - that's for wiki-wide changes, and it's becoming bloated enough with minor discussions that could be solved by a message to an administrator. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 14:43, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, and from my experience, it's easier to state "Merge" or "Split" as a comment in the same way anyone states "support" or "oppose"; instead of having a Split/Merge heading in every AfD. My original idea for the voting redesign didn't include the headings, but they were included as a compromise. I personally don't see the point in having all the headings in the first place -- apart from making every vote look neat, it's not like a user is going to state anything other than "Support" in the "Support" section. --Scottie theNerd 16:25, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - feel free to "revamp" the AfD page, Cod4. -- azuris_ 02:01, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.