Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-26/Discussion report

Discuss this story

Ok, so why on earth was that AfD special enough to be singled out here? Sounds pretty typical to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty typical, and there is nothing special about it. I choose a random AfD and write about that. If there is an AfD that you would like to see covered you can suggest it at our tips desk, if you like. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 07:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You chose a random AfD? Is there really nothing more important to cover? Alternatively, y'know, you could spend your time contributing to the encyclopedia... If there's nothing worth talking about, don't just make it up. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here just over four months and in that time created 58 articles, contributed to one DYK, and spent countless hours working on my own to get an article up to GA status. So please, saying I should spend more of my time contributing to the mainspace is really a little patronizing. If you don't want to read the Discussion report, then don't read it. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually useful to remind people that simple content issues are unlikely to be grounds for AfD. Many AfDs could be avoided, many many more streamlined if more folk remembered this simple guideline. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Good question, Jclemens. Moreover, why was TreasuryTag's behaviour deemed deserving of a public commentary by the Signpost? This is a very unusual piece, and not one I'd enjoy seeing emulated in future weeks. AGK 18:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of that section was not to highlight TreasuryTag's behaviour, but because I found the proposal that e-mails should be sent to users about talk page messages was interesting and something that the wider community would be interested to hear about. At the time of writing, however, almost half the report was taken up by the argument over TreasuryTag. I felt that if I covered half the discussion, then this COULD be considered censorship. My aim was to highlight this discussion so that users unaware of its existance would discover it and hopefully voice their opinions, which they have. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, this is a wiki, remember? Feel free to edit the article and add what you'd like to see rather than just berating the person who took the initiative to write something. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the last comment about TreasuryTag from the article, as I feel it's not worth highlighting here and just makes Wikipedia look bad. Let's remember that the Signpost is meant to showcase the best of Wikipedia, not comments we'd later regret. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like talking about AfDs here. I think it just looks like the signpost has nothing better to write about. Even Cunard's nominations of secret pages is more notable than an individual AfD. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. I have the feeling that the author write these 2 stories just as a page filler. There're lots more discussion happening that are more worthy to mention (e.g. about relaxing Betacommand's restrictiong to run the SPI bot) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that partly because of the comments here, and partly because the page is very hard to write, it has gone on a holiday from now. The page labours under the burden that we are all suffused in the reading of discussions. However, if a few noteworthy discussions arise in the future, I guess they could make a good story. Tony (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the reporting of some discussions and AFDs in the Signpost. Wikipedia can be a puzzling place for a newcomer and this sometimes fraught activity needs a window where some of the niceties and outcomes can be observed without diving in. It also tends to be the perogative of news editors to decide what constitutes news. Lumos3 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a pretty good article. You're actually doing something right if it stirs up some hoopla. Keep it up. I like BLP1E AfDs that get tons of votes, when you go looking for your next one. They're usually pretty interesting. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too don't see the need to report on individual AfDs. This one wasn't anything special. The email story is also too detailed, in that it centralize the debate around the views of two or three people, and encourages an "Editor 1 vs. editor 2, who will win!11!!" attitude. Report that the discussion is taking place, give a quick general summary of the for and against position, but there's no need to report "User:X said this, which was countered by User:Y who said this, which was re-countered by User:X who made this argument", etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think that there are some AfDs that have interesting arguments and perhaps some policy ramifications and might be worth reporting. But this one was not one such. Why not report on debates in WP:Centralized discussion? I find some of those mystifying. Abductive (reasoning) 10:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]