Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 9

Archive of "what to do when there's no consensus?"

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

→

Currently, if there's no rough consensus on keeping or deleting, we keep. But this isn't very satisfying to those who genuinely feel that some material shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. I think a wikipedia:inclusion dispute header would help in some of these cases. It may also provide a slightly softer way for people to question whether an article should be included in Wikipedia, without resorting to VfD, which may provide m:more heat than light. Martin 14:43, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be a unilateral way for someone to say, on the record, "I think this article should/shouldn't be included", with 40 chars of explanatory text. Then someday an upgraded w'pedia could

(1) have a little green square in the upper-right-hand side of each article, which on mouseover lists positive opinions; similarly, next to it, a little red square, which on mouseover lists negative opinions;

(2) run weekly scripts which pore over the db of such feedback and suggest articles for cleanup, conflict resolution, etc. based on this information.

(3) allow people to say "when I visit a page on Angela's or Maveric's bad-list, add a red line across the top so I know without mouseover to be wary of it".

(4) allow for targeted "come join this VfD" nots to be posted to the personal talk pages of everyone who has expressed an opinion about a page. +sj+ 20:41, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it should replace VfD, but it could be used for articles where there is no rough consensus to delete yet people still feel strongly about its inclusion. Angela . 08:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One issue I have with the idea is that for some (many?) such articles, there would be no way to ever resolve the dispute (short of waiting for the voting population to change). In that case, the tag becomes permanent. This is unlike the disputed facts or POV labels, where (in theory) the article can be changed in some way to eliminate the objections. I would hate to see Wikipedia with skads of articles with a permanent disputed inclusion label attached.

I am also unsure of what adding such a label would accomplish. It does not suggest that any action is pending, or is necessary. As much as I'm in favor of having standards for inclusion, I don't think this is the right approach. -Anthropos 08:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think is is a great idea. Wiki is much more than an encyclopaedia it is a place where stubs (which may be nothing more than a post by an individual curious about a subject) grow into articles with comprehensive info from otherwise obscure or foreign language references compiled by many individuals. Sometimes all that needs doing is for an article to be named more accurately or the info moved to a more appropriate place (as in the case of the late Transiaxartesia article which I wish I could read again). A new kind of stub label on an article pointing out that the article is of highly disputed, obscure or apochryphal nature would save a lot of time worrying for others to deal with improving those articles which are not under any form of question. There could also be an equivalent VfD in votes for the removal of the label. If the number of votes becomes not insignificant then it might be removed.

On second thoughts, I'm not sure it will work as those who don't dispute it will just keep removing the tag. Angela . 05:35, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Would it be possible to set something up whereby it cannot be manually removed until it has passed a certain number of votes for removal? Likewise automatic removal once it has passed that quota?Zestauferov 12:39, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see Angela and Zestauferov's point, but a similar kind of approach seems to work reasonably for neutrality disputes - people generally refrain from removing dispute markers until the dispute is resolved somehow, or until everyone from one side of the dispute has given up on Wikipedia as <insert epithet here>. I'd see this tying in with the oft-mentioned "version 1.0" in due course.

Sometimes adding facts or changing titles can resolve an inclusion dispute - especially articles that "can never be more than dictionary definitions" [sic] or are "no content stubs", but others too.

I don't see the benefit in a parallel to VfD for removing dispute tags - unlike article deletion, editing an article is a universally reversible change, so they don't need such a heavy level of peer review and due process - either in adding them or removing them.

Thanks for the responses. Martin 19:12, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see the need for an anti-{{msg:inclusion}} tag (otherwise, how can I indicate that I feel that such a marked article is indeed appropriate for the Wikipedia?). I could just use plaintext, but surly a plethora of such "meta-markup" is itself injurious to the readability of an article. Bevo 23:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Articles are, by default, suitable for inclusion. It is only the minority where agreement can not be reached over whether to delete a page that a notice is needed. Angela . 23:59, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

You can indicate your support on the Talk page. If you think inclusion is warranted, and someone else thinks it is not, then there is a dispute, no? Martin 00:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By policy, is the mark permanent? Bevo 00:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, I expect it can act like the other dispute notices (accuracy and NPOV) and could be removed when there is no longer a dispute. Angela . 00:20, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. There's no obvious way to resolve such a dispute, so these marks will stick around forever. That pollutes the article space and confuses newcomers. I have removed all of these tags, if someone wants to restore them, we should vote here first.—Eloquence 20:02, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to concur with Eloquence. This is a horrible idea and will do nothing to resolve the issue of generating "more heat than light". VfD isn't the best solution, but for articles which survive multiple VfD's this only further insults the original contributor(s) in question. As we've seen countless times on VfD already, there is an innumerable number of subjects and completely valid articles which many of us feel divided on whether or not they're "noteworthy enough" for Wikipedia. This doesn't mean that we should begin censoring those articles because 50% of the community doesn't like them, or worse yet put up little flags on each article further polluting what otherwise could be a great community effort. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I've reverted your removals. If you want to re-remove them, you should vote here first.

I think this is a good idea for the reasons I have given above. Unlike Eloquence, I feel that inclusion disputes can be resolved in some cases, and are no harder than many neutrality disputes, where the tag is equally long-term. Martin 20:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These dispute headers are like a disease spreading to virtually all controversial articles on Wikipedia. They are useless and annoying, and they do not help to address the issues that caused them. Given that these two positions are apparently irreconcilable, I hereby call for a vote on this matter.—Eloquence

Are you allowed to just randomly call for a vote? I thought we were meant to discuss the matter first? Perhaps if you would allow me to explain why I feel they are useful, and helpful? By all means call a vote if we fail to come to some sort of agreement. Martin

I have read the discussion above, and I have commented on the matter. I do not feel inclined to discuss such a trivial issue to death, and yes, I can call for a poll, if you pledge to accept the result of the poll. Of course you can play baby and insist that we go through a 10 day discussion period first, counting on me getting tired of the subject by then, but I would prefer it if we could settle this issue within the next few hours.—Eloquence

"play baby"? *raised eyebrow*.

I'll have that ten day discussion period then, if that's what I'm entitled to. I don't know whether you'll get tired, you seem to be quite adamant about this. All I'm asking is that, if you don't like this solution, then you provide a better solution. How do we solve inclusion disputes, if not like this? Martin 21:00, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For headers such as this, the first impression is often the most important. If a majority of people feel that they are annoying, that's reason enough to get rid of them. That doesn't mean that you haven't touched upon a valid problem, and my proposal for deletion reorganization (which has received majority support and will therefore be implemented) addresses some of them by providing a two-stage process that should settle these questions once and for all.—Eloquence

Vote

The vote is on the {{inclusion}} header:

This header does not necessarily endorse the deletion of any particular page, but indicates an opinion that the following content may not be encyclopedic or notable. Can this header be added to articles where there is no consensus for or against deletion, but many people feel strongly that they should not be included in Wikipedia?

Yes

Yes, anyone can add the header.

Anthony DiPierro
Gentgeen 16:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Eequor 11:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Probably the best thing would be to get rid of this header entirely, but if we are going to have it, anybody can use it. Sam [Spade] 20:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 03:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No

No, there should be consensus before adding a header.

—Eloquence 20:15, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC) (strongly)
Martin 00:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) (given that we all accept that NPOV and accuracy dispute headers are here to stay)
Davodd 05:55, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
There should be clear disagreement. Neutrality 00:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andre 07:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:11, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC) There is already a {{notable}} tag.

Other (please explain)

On short polls

~~You can already vote on this poll, but the official voting period will be from February 25 to February 27, 20:00 UTC respectively.~~

I've crossed out the notice about the dates of the poll. I think it is highly unfair to suggest that voting must take place over a period as short as two days, particularly when this poll has not been advertised anywhere. It's not on the village pump and it's not Wikipedia:Current polls. I haven't voted as I was waiting for someone who felt these things ought to be removed responded to the questions put forward by Sam and Gentgeen at the end of this page. I think the discussion needs to continue until those questions are resolved, and then voting happen after it has been advertised properly. Angela . 09:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Arguments against the header:

There was no consensus for deleting the page, so it is unlikely that such a consensus can be reached in the future. A compromise on these matters will be reachable in only very few cases -- after all, the dispute is about whether the very page should exist at all. If the people disputing its existence were ready to accept a compromise solution, they could have done so the moment that the debate about the existence of the page happened. They are not likely to do so any more just because an annoying header was added to the page.
Headers like this look unprofessional and distract from the purpose of Wikipedia as being an encyclopedia. They make us look like a community who cannot agree on the most basic matters, and while this may be true to some extent, it is certainly not the image which we want to present of ourselves to first-time visitors, and certainly not sanctify it as policy.
There is already an unacceptable numbers of these headers (accuracy disputes, NPOV disputes), which are used as a cop-out to avoid having to improve the article or sort out differences. We should talk about procedures to eliminate these headers within a given timeframe before adding more of them.

-- Eloquence

On your first point, just because we've not made a decision yet, doesn't mean that we will never reach a decision. For example, we might resort to a semi-formal vote, as for the AKFD redirects. Equally, the subject of the article may become dramatically more important and thus more encyclopedic. Sometimes a compromise can be a redirect. Sometimes it can be the addition of more material, or references, which enhances verifiability. Many options here. Martin 20:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Votes for deletion process is a decision making process. It currently requires consensus. If a consensus is not reached, a page is considered fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's as simple as that. If you want to change the policy, take it to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy instead of adding silly headers.—Eloquence 20:58, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Then let me change my first sentence: just because we've not made a [consensus] decision, doesn't mean that we will never reach a [consensus] decision.

No, I don't want to change that aspect of deletion policy. Incidentally, deletion policy currently only requires rough consensus, IIRC. Martin 21:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On your second point, I simply disagree. We have had specific kudos in a number of reviews for openly saying that the neutrality of a certain page is disputed. While few people care as much about our neutrality as we would like to think, it's still a benefit. Martin

I have not seen a single case where the NPOV dispute headers led to increased work on improving the neutrality of the page. On the contrary, the parties involved in the dispute simply settled on this header as a pseudo-compromise: "This version can stand, but I dispute it. Now I will go do something else." These headers are a way to avoid dealing with problems. And the inclusion dispute header is much different from the neutrality dispute header in terms of its impact on readers -- "They can't even agree on whether they want this article? What kind of encyclopedia is that?"—Eloquence 21:01, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I also have not seen a case where the NPOV dispute headers led to increased work on improving that particular page. I have seen cases where an NPOV dispute header led to increased work on Wikipedia as a whole. Further, by allowing a pseudo-compromise, these headers reduce edit wars, which is a major cause of people leaving Wikipedia. I am trying to consider this holistically.

In regards to your second point, these articles (by definition) are going to make some people think "they have an article about that? What kind of enecyclopedia is this?". An inclusion dispute header thus often increases our credibility, compared to the same article without such a header. Martin 21:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On your third point, I certainly am fine with you talking about procedures to eliminate disputes, and wish you luck in your attempts to do so. In the meantime, though, there are articles whose neutrality, accuracy, and encyclopedic nature are disputed, and thus a temporary "cop-out" is necessary. Martin 20:30, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These dispute headers do nothing to address or solve the dispute, as such they are useless. Because the inclusion dispute headers are practically permanent fixtures on some articles, they are most unprofessional and annoying.—Eloquence

I believe I've answered this point above. Martin 21:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regarding usefulness, I think I've already said why they're useful - they are a compromise between two otherwise incompatible viewpoints. A temporary compromise can be useful in getting a bit of breathing space for folks to reflect, consider the options, and maybe change their mind - safe in the knowledge that there is no five-day time pressure to do so. It's good to take our time over things - there is no vast rush, and there are always 200,000 other articles that could use work.

They're not a compromise. The article is still there, the header does not change that. They're just plain crap.—Eloquence

"crap"?

The article is still there, but the header indicates that we care about the views of those who feel it should not be. My experience is that this recognition of dissenting viewpoints is, in itself, valuable. Some people seek reassurance that they are not being ignored. Martin

Still, if you don't find this page useful, you don't have to use it. That's the beauty of Wikipedia - we can each do our thing and rarely need to clash. I don't see the benefit in saying that this header can NEVER be used where there is an inclusion dispute, and I don't see the benefit in saying that it must ALWAYS be used. Some flexibility, please. Martin 20:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is a completely nonsensical paragraph. How am I supposed "not to use them" when you slap them all over the place? It's not like I have a user preference to disable them (and don't dare to suggest that).—Eloquence

I was saying that you do not have to add them to your articles, and if someone else does, you can be more pro-active in removing them, and when you clean up VfD, you can choose not to use them in handling cases where there is no consensus. Is that clearer? Martin

As a practical example, if you succeed in your attempt to implement deletion polls, then this page will allow you to find at least some of the pages that should probably have a poll done on them - easily and simply. Is that not a benefit? Martin 20:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not. When the new deletion scheme is implemented, plenty of pages will be re-listed to go through the two stage process, regardless of whether they had the silly header on top of them or not.—Eloquence

Elsewhere, Eloquence said to me: "how about helping me to implement the two stage deletion process instead? This addresses the problem of inclusion disputes at its very roots: a currently unsophisticated decision making process".

Erik, I think this is more or less right. Once we no longer have any inclusion disputes, beyond articles simply being listed on "deletion requests" or "deletion votes", then this page will be unneeded, and we can delete it. And I have some sympathy with what you're proposing at deletion policy, though I'm still unsure about some of the details, so I'm abstaining for now.

Still, I think it would make sense to fix the deletion process first, and delete this page afterwards, once it is no longer needed, rather than the other way round. Certainly I can promise you that, if your new deletion process is as successful as you hope it will be, then I will be delighted to kiss this page goodbye.

My fear is that if you delete this page while we still have the old deletion process, it will make deletion debates longer and bloodier, at no real gain. And I'm still concerned that your new deletion process may be overruled, or may prove to not be the panacea that you feel it is. Martin 21:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As I stated above, I find these headers pointless even in the current state -- they don't do what they're supposed to do, they're just ugly. So I invite everyone to vote to get rid of these headers by Feb. 27.—Eloquence

I think you're misunderstanding my purpose. Perhaps I could simply ask you, what do you believe these headers are supposed to do? Martin 19:23, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

IRC log

<Xirzon> I dispute the inclusion of that page in Wikipedia

<MartinHarper> Hehe.

<MartinHarper> The irony hadn't escaped me.

<MartinHarper> Do you understand why I want it, at least?

<Xirzon> I think it's wrong headed and ugly

<MartinHarper> I understand that.

<Xirzon> these dispute headers are becoming a kind of cancer that will eventually kill us all!!!!111

<Xirzon> at least for accuracy disputes I can see the usefulness

<Xirzon> because it will hopefully motivate people to fix the articles

<Xirzon> but for inclusion disputes there's simply not enough fixability, and IMHO it circumvents our deletion process

<Xirzon> if we say "If you want to delete a page you need consensus"

<Xirzon> we shouldn't later go ahead and say "but if you don't get consensus, you can still slap this silly tag on the article so you're happy"

<MartinHarper> I agree that neither NPOV nor inclusion disputes motivate people to fix articles.

<Xirzon> well

<MartinHarper> However, I see that as a good thing! :)

<Xirzon> I believe you see yourself as a kind of community nanny

<Xirzon> and you want these tags to work in a way to keep the peace, keep the children quiet

<Xirzon> but that's not what they do

<MartinHarper> I want to reduce dispute, yes.

<Xirzon> in effect all they do is create bad feelings, indefinitely

<Xirzon> for NPOV disputes and accuracy disputes these bad feelings are, to some extent, a motivation to work on getting rid of the tags

<Xirzon> e.g. on Talk:Mother Teresa I was practically blackmailed to accept another user's wishes because otherwise "the tag stays"

<Xirzon> not that this is a good thing

<Xirzon> but at least it's possible to get rid of these tags

<Xirzon> for inclusion disputes the very idea strikes me as bizarre

<Xirzon> "It is disputed whether this article should be included in Wikipedia"

<MartinHarper> Could you not have been blackmailed to accept another user's wishes, otherwise the edit war stays?

<Xirzon> say that out loud a few times and ask yourself if it doesn't sound completely silly

<Xirzon> edit wars are not allowed, and we are quickly moving to making that a non-negotiable policy

<Xirzon> what I basically want

<MartinHarper> Could you not have been blackmailed to accept another user's wishes, otherwise their version of the article stays?

<Xirzon> well, not really

<MartinHarper> How come?

<Xirzon> in these situations where the talk page is the only recourse, in effect it often depends on who can articulate their arguments best

<Xirzon> or who has the longest staying power

<Xirzon> which is of course

<Xirzon> why I want users to be able to call for votes

<Xirzon> after a certain period

<Xirzon> so we end up actually making decisions.

<MartinHarper> So your feeling is that the situation would have been resolved by a vote.:

<Xirzon> but we still have the consensus seeking process.

<MartinHarper> And then the dissenting users would essentially have to lump it?

<Xirzon> in the mother teresa case, a lot of small issues could have been easily and well resolved through votes

<Xirzon> yes and no.

<Xirzon> they had plenty of time to articulate their arguments

<Xirzon> and to try to convince the others that they are right.

<Xirzon> but if they failed to do so after a certain period of time, then, yeah, the majority wins.

<Xirzon> this is the only way to get things done.

<Xirzon> and it is primarily relevant for the small issues which don't matter much anyway

<Xirzon> do we want large captions or short ones?

<Xirzon> do we want this headline or that one?

<Xirzon> can we use this adjective or not?

<MartinHarper> Mountains out of molehills.

<Xirzon> no

<Xirzon> if you do not have a clear decision making process

<Xirzon> then you make mountains out of molehills

<Xirzon> then there will be endless discussions and edit wars about trivial issues

<MartinHarper> That's what I meant.

<Xirzon> but if you do, then you can settle these matters within a given timeframe

<Xirzon> so we need this clearly defined decision making process, and it looks like it is being crystallized out

<MartinHarper> Also true. And because they are minor issues, nobody has too hard feelings. They can accept the result of a vote.

<MartinHarper> I wouldn't want to see too many votes on actual mountains, though.

<Xirzon> strangely enough, this rarely comes up

<Xirzon> but in these cases I would prefer not to vote on the issue

<Xirzon> but to vote on the policy that defines the issue

<Xirzon> e.g. in the case of mother teresa

<Xirzon> there was a big edit war about whether the page should have been split up

<Xirzon> in "controversial" and "non-controversial"

<MartinHarper> Yes, I recall.

<Xirzon> of course I objected to such a split-up

<Xirzon> but our NPOV policy isn't very clear on that

<Xirzon> so what I had to do to defend my views is basically do exegesis of our policy

<MartinHarper> No. There were precedents in both directions, if I recall.

<Xirzon> "In NPOV 4:22 it says, you shall not give preference to one POV"

<Xirzon> what I want instead is a policy which clearly states whether splitting away controversial issues is allowed

<Xirzon> so one midterm project of mine is to rewrite the NPOV policy

<Xirzon> in any discussions policy beats arguments. if people don't like a policy, they should make an effort to change it

<Xirzon> instead of arguing on the talk page of an article that it is evil/wrong etc.

<MartinHarper> That's been my feeling. Of course, if a policy is widely opposed, it carries less weight, at least in my eyes.

<Xirzon> well, that's another poorly defined issue

<MartinHarper> nod

<Xirzon> how can we create new policy? do we need consensus or what?

<Xirzon> right now I think we do need consensus

<Xirzon> but I'd prefer it if we had some better definition at least what consensus for a policy means

<MartinHarper> Perhaps. The three revert rule doesn't have consensus, but it will soon be effective policy.

<Xirzon> how can you be sure?

<Xirzon> what if wik continues to ignore it?

<MartinHarper> I see the way the wind is blowing.

<MartinHarper> All our policies are ignored by some people.

<Xirzon> I think it will only be official policy if jimbo makes it so

<Xirzon> yeah, but ignoring NPOV or Wikiquette is a bannable offense

<MartinHarper> Does everyone heed the NPOV policy? Does everyone heed the policy on personal attacks?

<MartinHarper> In theory.

<Xirzon> the arbitration committee can and will ban people for repeatedly violating either policy

<MartinHarper> Perhaps.

<Xirzon> it seems to me that Wikiquette violations are much more frequent than clear cut NPOV violations

<Xirzon> of course one could see the revert policy as a subset of wikiquette ..

<Xirzon> but that would be highly interpretative

<Xirzon> by the way, you reverted quite a bit on that inclusion dispute page

<MartinHarper> True.

<MartinHarper> As did you.

<Xirzon> you immediately removed my vote, that was unacceptable

<MartinHarper> I confess I was a little put out by your tone of voice.

<Xirzon> if there's one certain way to trigger edit wars it's the complete removal of information

<Xirzon> I do not recall saying much other than that the page is total crap!

<MartinHarper> I don't believe there was any removal of information. Your opinion was clear enough: the vote didn't add information.

<Xirzon> oh, well ..

<MartinHarper> Not a problem - you have a right to your opinion.

<MartinHarper> And I'm glad you understand my motivation.

<Xirzon> bah, that's semantics. the vote is a substantial piece of text, and the removal of substantial pieces of text without prior discussion is always likely to trigger conflict

<Xirzon> besides, it is entirely legitimate to hold non-binding opinion polls at any time

<Xirzon> it is not for you to decide who is and isn't allowed to participate in such a poll

<MartinHarper> In this case, I think my edits served a purpose: they got me breathing time.

<MartinHarper> So I can have this conversation with you.

<Xirzon> also, it would be very easy to resolve this issue if you just stepped out of the way and let the vote happen

<Xirzon> well it's obviously not getting us any closer to consensus

<MartinHarper> You'd be surprised.

<Xirzon> So you agree to getting rid of the headers?

<MartinHarper> You understand my motivations. You understand I want to reduce disputes. You understand that I see the headers as a way of doing that?

<MartinHarper> You believe that they don't, in fact, reduce disputes?

<Xirzon> Yes.

<MartinHarper> Based on your experience with M. Theresa?

<Xirzon> in part, yes, but also because of the specific nature of the ID headers

<Xirzon> they are practically permanent fixtures, and that means that they will alwyays be there to trigger new conflict

<MartinHarper> I understand that.

<Xirzon> and that's not the only issue with the ID headers

<MartinHarper> Well, let me discuss this one first! :)

<Xirzon> see

<MartinHarper> You set out your stall well - but for me, this is the key point.

<MartinHarper> If they don't resolve disputes, then I don't want them.

<Xirzon> I think this issue is totally not worth spending too much time talking about

<Xirzon> I think for such trivialities it would be nice to just - get - things done

<MartinHarper> I understand your impatience. But it bears on the other headers, so I think it's worth a short chat.

<Xirzon> I see that you enjoy conversation, and I do, too, but I'd prefer much to work on some other issues which I consider extremely relevant

<MartinHarper> Give me a few mins.

<Xirzon> well, I have no objection to the NPOV dispute and accuracy dispute headers

<Xirzon> to the NPOV dispute header a bit, maybe

<MartinHarper> Disputed included articles are always a source of new conflict. See how many arguments we've had over the Rambot articles, for example.

<MartinHarper> Do you believe the headers make things worse, though?

<Xirzon> So do you want to slap an inclusion dispute header on 30,000 articles?

<MartinHarper> No.

<Xirzon> well, but you arguably could

<Xirzon> what would stop you from doing so?

<Xirzon> after all inclusion dispute headers are allowed

<MartinHarper> I have a life? ;-)

<Xirzon> write an antirambot

<Xirzon> takes 20 mins with some perl knowledge

<MartinHarper> It's not just rambot. You saw the issue with AKFD happen again, and again, and again. It's like you say about our decision making process being shit.

<MartinHarper> Hmm.

<Xirzon> Well, slapping "The inclusion .. is disputed" on AKFD won'T exactly solve the problem

<Xirzon> especially as AKFD was about redirects

<MartinHarper> hehe

<MartinHarper> Ok, if you are willing to accept that NPOV dispute headers and accuracy headers are a permanent feature of Wikipedia, I'm happy to forgo inclusion disputes.

<MartinHarper> I don't want removing inclusion disputes to be a precedent.

<Xirzon> well, it's not for me to decide

<Xirzon> we may argue about NPOV dispute headers again in the future

<Xirzon> but I'd be more interested in fixing some process details about them than removing them entirely

<Xirzon> especially "when can an NPOV dispute header be removed?"

<MartinHarper> I can accept that, certainly.

<Xirzon> might take as little as one sentence: "You can remove the header after four weeks have passed without significant conflict on the page"

<Xirzon> four weeks probably too long ..

<MartinHarper> Your opinion has a lot of influence. If you are happy to consider NPOV disputes a permanent feature, that is sufficient for me.

<Xirzon> well

<Xirzon> I hate to say anything is a "permanent feature"

<MartinHarper> Likewise, I cannot guarantee that nobody else will have the "bright idea" of inclusion dispute headers, but I have a little influence.

<Xirzon> but I'd be willing to say that I won't question the very existence of NPOV dispute headers unless something unforseeable happens

<Xirzon> is that good enough? and if so, can I now remove the damn headers? ;)

<MartinHarper> Hehe

<MartinHarper> Let's make a couple posts on the talk page so people know what the heck is going on. :)

<MartinHarper> I'll go first :)

<Xirzon> Feel free to dump this IRC log, that'll clear things up ;)

<MartinHarper> Really? That's easy then. I'll "vote" too

So what this basically means, we agree to get rid of the inclusion dispute headers, if the NPOV dispute and accuracy dispute headers are retained.—Eloquence 00:23, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Martin 00:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But what about my inclusion dispute? Should I list Libertarian Socialism on VfD, or what? I feel it is "irredeemably biased". Sam Spade 00:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

List it on Cleanup and see if somebody else can do something with it. RickK 00:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed the suggestion that Template:Controversial be used instead. An inclusion dispute is not the same as a controversial issue. What is a riduclous-looking green box going to solve? If anything is going to be used, it should be something that mentions the specific problem - ie inclusion - not something as general as "controversial", and not in a big green box! Angela . 12:13, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad I saved this log. It makes me feel happy to review my awesome predictive powers... :) Martin 01:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why can't I have my Inclusion dispute?

Whats the deal? Why can't this page be active? It fulfils a legitimate need, IMO. How was this decided? A couple people on IRC, or what? For what reasons? I don't get it. Sam Spade 14:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to know why this can't be used either. I was just about to go and add it to every recipe, just to warn people they're going to be up for removal sooner or later. Gentgeen 16:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object to these dispute headers. I have already explained the reason for this in the "arguments" section above, but my main problem with them is that they are effectively in violation of our process, and that there are no clear circumstances under which they can be removed. If a page is nominated for deletion, but no consensus can be reached for deletion, then the page cannot be deleted, period. These are our present guidelines for deletion. If you do not like the guidelines, you should work to change them instead of going around and adding dispute notices everywhere.

For example, I strongly object to articles about numbers which contain purely trivial information (Talk:List of numbers/Deletion). But there is no wide support to delete these pages, even though many people strongly object to them. It would be silly of me to go around adding dispute headers to these articles. I could object to the other party removing these headers on the grounds that the dispute is not yet "resolved", yet the only way to resolve the dispute is to delete the page. So I could effectively "brand" articles with no way for the other party to remove that brand. That is grossly unfair and there's no reason why we should allow this.

At least for NPOV and accuracy disputes there are ways to resolve these disputes and remove the header. For inclusion disputes these headers can linger for months on end without doing any good whatsoever. Again, if you don't like our deletion policy, work to change it, instead of trying to circumvent it by flagging articles which have passed VfD but which you think should be removed.—Eloquence 09:44, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Gentgeen's circumstances are slightly different because there is widespread support for moving all the recipes to the relevant wikibook, and (last I checked) this wasn't controversial - see talk:list of recipes: it's just a matter of time.

To Gentgeen - perhaps create a more specific header, possibley as an HTML comment: < -- Some of this article will shortly be moved to wiibooks -- > ? Martin 16:42, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about This article is a candidate for Transwiki (copying to another Wikimedia wiki). See the discussion page for details. ?—Eloquence 22:48, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

There's also the boilerplate discussed at Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log which could be used. Angela . 23:21, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

{{inclusion}} dead

Just to confirm the above: Is the {{inclusion}} template dead - as in, it shouldn't be used? The project page should be updated to reflect this consensus (if indeed there is one). ··gracefool |☺ 04:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the consensus is that {{inclusion}} should not be used, then the same should apply to {{notable}}. They are basically the same thing. Angela . 23:32, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

The notable template is deleted and the category is empty. I think you got your wish. --ssd 15:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Inclusion dispute page indicates this policy was rejected by concensus. Can we therefore remove the tag from all the pages that still have it? --ssd 15:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)