Talk:Archive:The Big Speedydelete

Shouldn't the sign-up be by Workgroup, rather than by letter? As for those articles not yet placed in a Workgroup, is there a list somewhere? James F. Perry 11:13, 17 February 2007 (CST)

What is the meaning of the A - Z markers?????, I thought I got it until that, now I forgot how to make chocolate of it. Robert Tito | Talk 11:16, 17 February 2007 (CST)

I'm pretty sure it means all articles beginning with the letter in question. There is a list of all CZ articles, alphabetized. So you're supposed to go through the articles in the letter of your sign-up, check the edit history to see what's going on, and mark for deletion all those which meet the delete criteria. I guess. James F. Perry 11:23, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Wouldn't workgroup-based responsibility be more appropriate? Making it easier for editors/sysops of a certain number or groups where their focus is. Robert Tito | Talk 11:46, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Right, James, that's what it does mean, and the reason we can't do it by Workgroup is that most of the 3000+ pages in the main article namespace aren't tagged by workgroup. Besides, these are not decisions that require the expertise of editors. --Larry Sanger 12:04, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Can I mark all top articles that are not live? --Versuri 12:32, 17 February 2007 (CST)

No, not necessarily. You have to check the page history. It's possible that someone has worked on an article and neglected to mark it "CZ Live." Besides, we're going by letter, not by category; it's the only way to be adequately exhaustive. There are some live articles we're going to delete, because someone inadvertantly marked it as CZ Live and then did nothing. --Larry Sanger 12:33, 17 February 2007 (CST) Working together with Jim, I browsed through many of the chemistry pages and labeled some of them "Live" because they fit well in the structure of the topic/workgroup-article and did minor adjustments, to make them ready for editing by other authors or editors. They might get inadvertedly deleted where some changes (minor) were applied. On the other hand, there willbe some that are edited in some way, just by lack of time not edited more deeply. Here my "delete in the blind" acts upon. Although I do grant that might that happen a recapture of the WP article will be sufficient in 95% of the cases. Robert Tito | Talk 12:38, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Should I mark articles that have had no edits in the past week and only a few trivial edits, period (e.g., adding or deleting categories)? For example, [[Quantum chemistry]] when I first went through the 'Q' list [1].

--Todd Trimble 15:00, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Todd--yes, I think so. If only trivial edits and the article came from WP, it fits clearly in the first category. --Larry Sanger 15:15, 17 February 2007 (CST)

Is this working as planned?

A little log browsing makes me think this Big Speedydelete might not be working as planned, and I thought I'd kick of some discussion about it. I'm not sure there's anything to "fix" right now. It's "speedy" after all, and probably will be over before any course changes can be made. But it seems to me some analysis/discussion might be worth capturing for the future.

The "sign up for a whole letter section" plan seemed to scare people away from signing up, but not from doing the work. Or did I misanalyze why a lot of sections (right now: A, B and T at least) are having the template applied, but no one is "signed up"?

Some peculiar special exceptions have been thrown:

• Quantum chemistry
• vipers/asp "special case"

In a case or two, deletion started through a category before analysis was marked complete.

--Todd Trimble 15:51, 17 February 2007 (CST)