|
The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 sometimes known as the '''First Kashmir War''' was a war fought between [[India]] and [[Pakistan]] over the region of [[Kashmir]] from [[1947]] to [[1949]]. It was the first of the many wars fought among the two newly independent nations.
Old talk:
==Cause==
The state of [[Jammu and Kashmir]] had been part of India since time immemorial. It was one of a number of Indian states that recognised British paramountcy. Prior to the withdrawal of the British from India, the state came under pressure from both India and Pakistan to join their states. The [[Maharaja]] of Kashmir, [[Hari Singh]] wanted to remain independent and tried to delay the issue. However at the time of British withdrawal the state was invaded by a concentrated force of Pakistani-backed irregulars and regular Pakistani soldiers. This forced him to accede Kashmir to India who promptly rushed into Kashmir and thus the war had started.
==Summary of War==
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive 1a]] - pre-20 May 2003
The AZK had several advantages in the war, notably:
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/archive 1b]] - 20 May-14 September 2003
*Prior to the war the Jammu and Kashmir state forces had been spread thinly around the border as a response to terrorist activity, and so were badly deployed to counter a full scale invasion.
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for_deletion/archive 2]] - starts 27 August 2003
*Some of the state forces rebelled and joined the invaders.
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for_deletion/archive 3]] - September 2003
*The AZK were also aided by regular Pakistani soldiers who manned some of their units, with the proportion increasing throughout the war.
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for_deletion/archive 4]] - Oct-Dec 2003
*British officers may have helped the Pakistanis plan the attack.
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/2004 archives]] - Summaries of Jan-Feb 2004
As a result of these advantages the main invasion force quickly brushed aside the Jammu and Kashmir state forces. But the attacker’s advantage was not vigorously pressed and the Indians saved the country by airlifting reinforcements. This was at the price of the state formally succeeding to India. With Indian reinforcements the Pakistani / AZK offensive ran out of steam towards the end of 1947. The exception to this was in the High Himalayas sector where the AZK were able to make substantial progress until turned back at the outskirts of Leh in late June 1948. Throughout 1948 many small-scale battles were fought. None of these gave a strategic advantage to either side and the fronts gradually solidified. Support for the AZK forces by Pakistan became gradually more overt with regular Pakistani units becoming involved. A formal cease-fire was declared on [[31 December]], 1948.
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time]] - discussion of the "seven day rule"
==Results of the War==
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions]] - should there be instructions at the top of this page?
The independent state of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist. The cease fire line has over the years became a de facto division of the country. This has given about one third of the land area to Pakistan and about two thirds to India. The Indians retained control of the relatively wealthy and populous Kashmir Valley, and a majority of the population. In [[1956]], this area became the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the India union.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Archived delete debates]] - when should we use seperate /deletion pages, as opposed to headers, and should they be further edited?
* [[Wikipedia talk:Inclusion dispute]] - what to do when there's no consensus?
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title]] - should this page be renamed to ''proposed deletions''?
*[[/vfm]] - Votes for merge proposal
* [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/March 2004]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/April 2004]]
*[[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/May-June 2004]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/July 2004]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/August 2004]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/September-December 2004]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/January-February 2005]]
==Stages of the War==
old page history:
This war has been split into ten stages by time. The individual stages are detailed below.
===Initial Invasion 22 Oct 1947 – 26 Oct 1947 (Op Gulmarg)===
* [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion history archive 2004-09-20]].
[[Image:J&K01low.jpg|Initial Invasion 22 Oct 1947 – 26 Oct 1947 (Op Gulmarg)]]<br>
__FORCETOC__
A large invasion of the Kashmir valley was mounted by the irregular forces, aimed at Srinagar, the capital of Jammu and Kashmir. The state forces were defeated and the way to the capital, ([[Srinagar]]), was open. There was also a mutiny by state forces in favour of the AZK in Domel.
In desperation, Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir requested the Indian Government for Indian troops to stop the uprising. The Indians told him that if Singh signed an Instrument of Accession allowing Kashmir to join the Indian Union, only then would India rush in troops for the protection of one of its territories. This, the Maharaja promptly did. Following this accession, the Indian troops arrived and quickly blocked the advance of the invaders, preventing the imminent sacking of Srinigar.
However, many of the irregular forces went home with their loot after plundering local towns and thus failed to press the attack home. In the Punch valley the Jammu and Kashmir state forces retreated into towns and were besieged.
----
== Vfd for Vfd ==
===Indian defence of the Kashmir Valley 27 Oct 1947 – 17 Nov 1947===
FYI: [[User:DavidLevinson]] listed this page for deletion, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&diff=10659342&oldid=10659043] and [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion]]. I rolled back the listing and gave him a warning on his talk page. -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 01:47, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
[[Image:J&K02low.jpg|Indian defence of the Kashmir Valley 27 Oct 1947 – 17 Nov 1947]]<br>
Indian forces, rapidly airlifted to Srinagar managed to defeat the irregular forces on the outskirts of the town. This was partially due to an outflanking manoeuvre by armoured cars. Shattered, the AZK were pursued as far as Baramula and Uri and these towns were recaptured. In the Punch valley the sieges of the loyal Jammu and Kashmir state forces continued. Meanwhile, the troops in Gilgit (the Gilgit Scouts) mutinied and this yielded most of the far north of the state to the AZK.
----
=== Attempted link-up at Punch 18 Nov 1947 – 26 Nov 1947===
[[Image:J&K03low.jpg|Attempted link-up at Punch 18 Nov 1947 – 26 Nov 1947]]<br>
The Indian forces ceased their pursuit of the shattered AZK forces and swung south in an attempt to relieve Punch. This was less successful than hoped, because inadequate reconnaissance had underestimated the difficulty of the roads. Although the relief column eventually reached Punch, the siege could not be lifted. A second relief column reached only Kotli and was forced to evacuate its garrison. Mirpur was captured by the AZK and its inhabitants particularly the Hindus were slaughtered.
----
===Fall of Jhanger and attacks on Naoshera and Uri 25 Nov 1947 - 6 Feb 1948===
[[Image:J&K04low.jpg|Fall of Jhanger and attacks on Naoshera and Uri 25 Nov 1947 - 6 Feb 1948]]<br>
The Pakistani/AZK forces attacked and captured Jhanger. They then attacked Naoshera unsuccessfully. In both areas they killed and raped not only Hindus but any muslims who were against them. Other Pakistani/AZK forces made a series of unsuccessful attacks on Uri. In the south a minor Indian attack secured Chhamb. By this stage of the war the front line began to stabilise as more Indian troops became available.
----
===Op Vijay: counterattack to Jhanger 7 Feb 1948 - 1 May 1948===
[[Image:J&K05low.jpg| Op Vijay: counterattack to Jhanger 7 Feb 1948 - 1 May 1948]]<br>
The Indian forces launched a counterattack in the south recapturing Jhanger and Rajauri. In the Kashmir Valley the Pakistani/AZK forces continued attacking the Uri garrison. In the north Skardu was brought under siege by Pakistani/AZK forces.
----
===Indian Spring Offensive 1 May 1948 - 19 May 1948===
[[Image:J&K06low.jpg|Indian Spring Offensive 1 May 1948 - 19 May 1948]]<br>
The Indians held onto Jhanger against numerous counterattacks from the AZK, who were increasingly supported by regular Pakistani Forces. In the Kashmir Valley the Indians attacked, recapturing Tithwail. The AZK made good progress in the High Himalayas sector, infiltrating troops to bring Leh under siege, capturing Kargil and defeating a relief column heading for Skardu.
----
===Operations Gulab and Erase 19 May 1948 - 14 Aug 1948===
[[Image:J&K07low.jpg|Indian Spring Offensive 1 May 1948 - 19 May 1948]]<br>
The Indians continued to attack in the Kashmir Valley sector driving north to capture Keran and Gurais. They also repelled a counterattack aimed at Tithwail. In the Punch Valley the forces besieged in Punch broke out and temporarily linked up with the outside world again. The AZK made good progress in the High Himalayas sector and got to the outskirts of Leh and eventually captured Skardu. However an attempt to take the town of Leh itself was unsuccessful.
----
===Operation Duck 15 Aug 1948 - 1 Nov 1948===
[[Image:J&K08low.jpg|Operation Duck 15 Aug 1948 - 1 Nov 1948]]<br>
During this time the front began to settle down with less activity by either side, the only major event was an unsuccessful attack by the Indians towards Dras (Operation Duck). The siege of Punch continued.
----
===Operation Easy. Punch link-up 1 Nov 1948 - 26 Nov 1948===
[[Image:J&K09low.jpg|Operation Easy. Punch link-up 1 Nov 1948 - 26 Nov 1948]]<br>
The Indians now started to get the upper hand in all sectors. Punch was finally relieved after a siege of over a year. The AZK forces in the High Himalayas, who had previously made good progress, were finally defeated. The Indians pursued as far as Kargil before being forced to halt due to supply problems. The Zoji-La pass was forced by using tanks (which had not been thought possible at that altitude) and Dras was recaptured. The use of tanks was based on experience gained in Burma in 1945.
----
===Moves up to cease-fire. 27 Nov 1948 - 31 Dec 1948===
[[Image:J&K10low.jpg| Moves up to cease-fire. 27 Nov 1948 - 31 Dec 1948]]<br>
Realising that they were not going to make any further progress in any sector, the Pakistanis decided to end the war. A UN cease-fire was arranged for the 31st Dec 1948. A few days before the cease-fire the Pakistanis launched a counter attack, which cut the road between Uri and Punch.
:Warning ... like I am more vandalous than the VfD crowd, I doubt it. It should be listed and debated fairly. Why should it be discussed on VfD talk before it is listed ...the VfD process don't post talk on the pages before they propose for deletion. The VfD process should be applied to VfD, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. [[User:DavidLevinson|dml]] 02:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After protracted negotiations a cease-fire was agreed to by both countries, which came into effect. The terms of the cease-fire as laid out in the UNCIP resolution (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom1.htm) of [[August 13]], 1948 were adopted by the UN on [[January 5]], 1949. This required Pakistan to withdraw her forces, both regular and irregular, while allowing India to maintain minimum strength of her forces in the state to preserve law and order. On compliance of these conditions a plebiscite was to be held to determine the future of the territory. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war and Pakistan was able to acquire roughly two-fifths of Kashmir. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1947.htm)
::Deleting VfD would require a policy change, hence the normal deletion process for articles IMHO does not apply. -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 02:53, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
==Military insights gained from the war.==
:::I agree—VfD normally applies to articles, not to policies that are currently in effect. Certainly if one wanted to change the deletion process, a new policy should be discussed and agreed upon before abandoning the old one. Even if I thought the VfD process were horribly flawed, it would be inappropriate to vote "delete" since is it is a currently-active policy page. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ]] ([[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|talk]]) 03:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===On the use of armour===
:::: Are we allowed to create a poll in order to see how many wikipedians support an active policy? How a policy becomes active? Can you point to the poll that shows how many people supported Vfd policy when it become active? Are we allowed to repeat that poll and ask the opinion of wikipedians again? And how many people must support a policy in order to become an active one? Is simple majority enough?
The use of light tanks and armoured cars was important at two stages of the war. Both of these Indian victories involved very small numbers of AFVs. These were:-
::::: You are Iasson and I claim my ψ5. [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|→•←]] 11:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*The defeat of the initial thrust at Srinagar, which was aided by the arrival of 2 armoured cars in the rear of the irregular forces.
*The forcing of the Zoji-La pass with 11 Stuart M5 light tanks.
This may show that armour can have a significant psychological impact if it turns up at places thought of as impossible.
It is also likely that the invaders did not deploy anti-tank weapons to counter these threats. Even the lightest weapons will significantly encumber leg infantry units, so they may well have been perceived as not worth the effort of carrying about, and left in rear areas. This will greatly enhance the psychological impact of the armour when it does appear.
The successful use of armour in this campaign strongly influenced Indian tactics in the 1962 war where great efforts were made to deploy armour to inhospitable regions (although with much less success in that case).
===Progression of front lines===
==Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kees A. Schouhamer Immink==
*It is interesting to chart the progress of the front lines. After a certain troop density is reached progress was very slow with victories being counted in the capture of individual villages or peaks. Where troop density was lower (as it was in the High Himalayas sector and at the start of the war) rates of advance can be very high.
I listed this page a couple of hours ago, it was on the list but not on the main page. Technical error? Censorship? I cannot get it onto the main page, please can someone help.- This page is always difficult to put things on. Can the format be changed so articles are not arbitrarily rewmoved from here. An irate --[[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
===Deployment of forces===
*Not a technical error. Not censorship. Pilot error. It is yourself that you should be irate with, if anything. You didn't follow the step-by-step instructions at the bottom of [[WP:VFD]]. I've performed the step that you omitted. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 19:46, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
*The Jammu and Kashmir state forces were spread out in small packets along the frontier to deal with terrorist incidents. This made them very vulnerable to a conventional attack. India used this tactic against East Pakistan in 1971.
==References==
===Major Sources===
*“Operations In Jammu and Kashmir 1947-1948” Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Thomson Press (India) Limited. New Delhi 1987. This is the Indian Official History, and was the major source for this work.
*“The Indian Army After Independence”, by KC Praval, 1993. Lancer International, 1-897829-45-0
*“Slender Was The Thread: The Kashmir confrontation 1947-1948”, by Maj Gen LP Sen, 1969. Orient Longmans Ltd New Delhi.
*“Without Baggage: A personal account of the Jammu and Kashmir Operations 1947-1949” Lt Gen. E. A. Vas. 1987. Natraj Publishers Dehradun. ISBN 81-85019-09-6.
===Other Sources===
*“The Indian Armour: History Of The Indian Armoured Corps 1941-1971”, by Maj Gen Gurcharn Sandu, 1987, Vision Books Private Limited, New Delhi, ISBN 81-7094-004-4.
*“Thunder over Kashmir”, by Lt Col Maurice Cohen. 1955 Orient Longman Ltd. Hyderabad
*“Battle of Zoji La”, by Brig Gen SR Hinds, Military Digest, New Delhi, 1962.
*“History of Jammu and Kashmir Rifles (1820-1956)”, by Maj K Barhma Singh, Lancer International New Dehli, 1990, ISBN 81-7062-091-0.
==See also==
== How to make friends and influence people ==
*[[Indo-Pakistani War of 1965]]
*[[Partition of India]]
[[Category:Indo-Pakistan Wars]]
I know I'm going to regret this bit of stirring I'm about to do, but here goes anyway...I was bored recently (for about a fortnight) and produced some VFD stats. This table shows how many '''nominations''' were made per user from [[December 25]] (the start of day pages) to [[February 18]]. I've divided everything into a basic keep or delete '''outcome''' (merge/redirect/no consensus = keep, copyvio/transwiki = delete). The top 7 users account for a remarkable 25% of nominations, and the top 35 account for 50%.
[[Category:Kashmir]]
[[Category:1947]]
{|
[[Category:Jammu and Kashmir]]
!Nominator!!Delete!!Keep!!Pending!!Total!!Delete %
|-
|[[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]]||75||56||70||201||57%
|-
|[[User:Fvw|Fvw]]||122||25||||147||83%
|-
|[[User:RickK|RickK]]||93||41||6||140||69%
|-
|[[User:DCEdwards1966|DCEdwards1966]]||85||48||||133||64%
|-
|[[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]]||69||28||2||99||71%
|-
|[[User:GRider|GRider]]||12||46||38||96||21%
|-
|[[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]]||73||12||||85||86%
|-
|[[User:Hoary|Hoary]]||46||13||1||60||78%
|-
|[[User:Curps|Curps]]||44||12||||56||79%
|-
|[[User:LeeHunter|LeeHunter]]||42||13||||55||76%
|-
|[[User:Thue|Thue]]||47||1||5||53||98%
|-
|[[User:JoaoRicardo|JoaoRicardo]]||30||19||1||50||61%
|-
|[[User:Gadfium|Gadfium]]||39||7||||46||85%
|-
|[[User:Jni|Jni]]||41||2||2||45||95%
|-
|[[User:BM|BM]]||17||19||5||41||47%
|-
|[[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]]||35||4||||39||90%
|-
|[[User:Smoddy|Smoddy]]||18||15||||33||55%
|-
|[[User:Cdc|Cdc]]||26||4||||30||87%
|-
|[[User:ZayZayEM|ZayZayEM]]||15||12||||27||56%
|-
|[[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]]||22||2||1||25||92%
|-
|[[User:Michael Ward|Michael Ward]]||22||2||||24||92%
|-
|[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]]||15||9||||24||63%
|-
|[[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]]||16||7||||23||70%
|-
|[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]]||14||8||1||23||64%
|-
|[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]]||18||4||1||23||82%
|-
|[[User:Rje|Rje]]||21||1||||22||95%
|-
|[[User:Sjorford|Sjorford]]||20||2||||22||91%
|-
|[[User:J3ff|J3ff]]||21||1||||22||95%
|-
|[[User:Scott Burley|Scott Burley]]||17||3||1||21||85%
|-
|[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]]||16||4||1||21||80%
|-
|[[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]]||11||9||||20||55%
|-
|[[User:Tregoweth|Tregoweth]]||6||14||||20||30%
|-
|[[User:Brookie|Brookie]]||4||6||10||20||40%
|-
|[[User:Inter|Inter]]||15||5||||20||75%
|-
|[[User:Deb|Deb]]||16||3||1||20||84%
|-
|Total (684 users)||2387||963||209||3559||71%
|}
I'm not passing judgement on any of this, because I know you'll all do it for me. Or can we all learn to [[WIkipedia:Wikilove|live together in peace]]...? (ow! OW!) [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|→•←]] 23:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*What is the purpose of this table? — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker দ]] ([[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|talk]]) 23:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**I must admit I'm puzzled and dismayed by this. As much as some people would like us to believe otherwise, VfD is not an inherently "unWikiloving" bad thing. Look for instance at the fact that "copyvio" is counted under "delete" -- is this table admonishing us that we should leave copyvios alone, lest we get the bullseye on our back of being tagged as Wikipedia's biggest deletionists? It's encouraging people to take our VfD records out of context that I find less than Wikiloving. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 00:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***We may well need a VFD slogan of "'''INATVD!'''" ("It's not about the votes, dummy!") at this rate. <s>This table is a prime example of where the "voting" mentality, rather than the discussion mentality, takes one. It completely mischaracterizes the contributions of ''everyone'' in that table, ignores the fact that (a small minority of "keyboard macro voters" aside) many people pass over VFD discussions where a clear consensus is forming (''either'' way) that they agree with, and ''discards the most important information'': the rationales.</s> I strongly suggest, again, that people read [[WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy]], [[WP:GVFD#Discussion]], and [[m:Don't vote on everything]]. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 12:34, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
****Okay, I said I wasn't going to comment, but I feel I need to clarify this: '''this table doesn't count votes'''. It lists the ''outcome'' of each discussion, sorted by who originally ''nominated'' the page for deletion. I actually agree with you, that the voting aspect of VFD should be played down, but that's not what these dats show. [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]] [[User talk:Sjorford|→•←]] 13:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*****Thanks for inserting the extra words to make it clear. The table takes on a different character now. I'm taking your last sentence to be implying that these data don't show anything about the voting aspect of VFD, rather than to be implying that these data show that the voting aspect of VFD should be enphasised, by the way. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 00:07, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
*Hmm food for thought. Actually I'm surprised that the top 7 only account for 25%, but I think this may be changing. Personally I wouldn't count copvios at all, since they aren't really a matter for Vfd, and I'd count transwiki as keep since the information survives. One interesting think to do would be to track nominators' percentages, to see if their ability to make persuasive nominations is increasing. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 13:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**Another reason to count "transwiki" as "keep" is that it doesn't require an administrator's attention. Anyone can add the appropriate transwiki tag to the page, without adding to the VfD overload. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 14:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*What's the point? Nominations should be the opening of a discussion, not an attempt to predict the outcome. Is this a deliberate attempt to factionalize Wikipedia? Are we going to start compiling Americans-for-Deletionistic-Action scores? Blacklists? I don't get it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 13:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**"What's the point?" There aren't that many of us who close VfD votes; the backlog at [[WP:VFD/Old]] is currently at 8 days. Although I understand that nominating a lot of articles is a useful contribution, I'd appreciate if the people on this list with low "success rates" would be a little more conservative about nominations. Fewer unsuccessful nominations means less VfD work for me, and more time I can spend working on articles. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 13:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*Interesting analysis, thanks sjorford. I guess the conclusion to draw is that those who are getting very high percentage "eventually deleted" are being too cautious - some of their nominations should perhaps be speedys (after all VfD is colossal). Those are getting a very low percentage "eventually deleted" should perhaps hold their fire - they are nominating things that the community as a whole wants to keep. And those in the middle... great job guys! (p.s. it is truly amazing that so many articles are nominated, you'd've thought by now we know what to keep and what to delete through policy and precedence, so there would be few "thorny cases" that need vfd discussion... anyone would think people ''like'' taking part in vfd debates!) [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 23:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
**It shouldn't be amazing. I recognize several fellow New Page Patrollers on that list. The main reason for VFD being large is that it is simply a knock-on effect of the increased popularity of Wikipedia. (Note the similar backlog that has built up at [[WP:CP]], from the same causes.) More articles are being added, and thus there is an increased volume of traffic in the various "bins" that new articles are sorted into. VFD is simply one of those bins. (The penultimate stage in New Page Triage (which I really should finish my article on) is considering whether the article should be nominated for normal deletion.) The fact that an increasing input article volume is being reflected in an increasing VFD volume is an indicator that New Page Patrollers are, in the main, keeping things honest and not taking shortcuts. Although I've on occasion unspeedied articles that didn't fulfil the CSD criteria (triggering a torrent of personal attacks in one case). And because of that I disagree that those nominators with the higest percentages should switch to speedy deletion. Some articles simply ''do not qualify'' for speedy deletion, and abuse of the speedy deletion process simply because one "knows" that normal deletion will very probably result in a delete should not be encouraged. There are good reasons for the speedy deletion criteria being narrow and specific. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 00:07, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
*Interesting table! Please post updates to it occasionally. Those users with delete-% < 60 should definitely be more careful when nominating articles, we have too many false positives. I don't think that large % means lots of cases that end up as speedy deletions, although someone could collect statistics about this also. Most RC-patrollers seem to know the distinction and the speedys to VfD come from newbies. [[User:Jni|jni]] 18:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==How to make VFD of manageable size==
One way to make VFD of manageable size is to enforce step 3 of the procedure for nomination, which is: "3. Under the section, describe, in accordance with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted and clearly write what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist others in determining consensus. Don't forget to sign and datestamp (using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)." An awful lot of nominations are bogus - listing reasons that are nowhere to be found in [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]].
Therefore, I propose:
:Any VFD nomination not listing a reason in [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] may be summarily removed from the page.
This alone would only be enforcing existing policy and would reduce the size of VFD considerably.
(It could also be applied to votes, but that would be making new policy, not reinforcing existing policy.)
Thoughts? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 18:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: We really just need to expand the deletion criteria. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 18:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::David's idea is good in principle, but I worry about the extra controversy that would result. Attempts to expand speedy deletion criteria also seem to have failed. What we could do is again shorten the deletion timer. At least 80% of VfD votes are cast in the first twenty-four hours and only a tiny fraction on the last day. Reducing the deletion timer by a day would considerably shorten the page, without changing the outcome of any votes. Since there is a perennial backlog on VfD/Old articles will still usually wait a week or so before actually being deleted. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 18:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::I strongly disagree with shortening the timer. Not everyone has the time to sweep through VFD daily. Not everyone has the time to sweep through it twice a week. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's ''really long''. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 18:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I too disagree. I've been doing random surveys of VfD when I remember to and feel like it and then posting the results at [[User:Johnleemk/VfD statistics]]. From my experience, the results can do a 180 after the second day. At the most, I would tolerate reducing the cycle to four days, but not any less. I think five days is a good sweet spot. Would this be a good time to plug [[Wikipedia:preliminary deletion|preliminary deletion]]? :-p [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 19:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::I was only suggesting shortening the time by one day. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 22:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I think that would be a good idea; people can always read earlier logs by date, and can still vote on any issues that are still open. It would reduce loading time for the main page. [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] 23:20, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
: Does the deletion policy enumerate ''the unexpected''? As a general purpose deletion processing unit VfD needs to be ready to handle every imaginable kind of unencyclopedianess including cases without clear precedents. I would however support removing requests that clearly belong to IFD, TFD, RFD or CFD immediately after routing to the correct destination (with deletion of the now redundant subpage). The root cause of big VfD is rampant inclusionism that is eroding Wikipedia with garbage and the correct cure is expansion of the deletion criteria, as AllyUnion commented, not more redtape. [[User:Jni|jni]] 18:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::That's the point - my proposal is to actually enforce existing policy, and hence ''reduce'' the clog. The red tape of going through the whole of VFD is now significant.
::Adding criteria is a separate creation of new policy, and hardly of actual ''urgency'' such as to be more important than actually ratifying said new policy.
::The question is then, really: is [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] to be regarded as merely decorative and hence deletable itself? Or is it to be regarded the way the VFD instructions read as regarding it? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 18:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::The deletion policy cannot be regarded as window dressing, of course, but I fear strict enforcement of your proposal just causes arguments about which listing to keep and which to remove prematurely. I haven't read the policy in months, so I don't remember what wording it uses, but would you consider "nn. del. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" as a valid nomination? (I guess I have internalized the existing practise quite well, since no one has been complaining about my votes or noms...) What to do when you see a nomination for article that obviously needs deletion, but some formalities are missing? Either fix the formalities or resubmit it yourself after someone has removed it from the log. Again, extra work. Now, enter the trolls whose ''raison d'etre'' is to disrupt VfD...
:::I feel that requiring extra punctiliousness just reduced the ''demand'' (in economic sense) for VfD, which has the effects of either leaving more garbage intact or increasing demand for speedy deletions. Widening the CSD criteria or reducing the lagtime both increase the deletion throughput and thus reduce the size of the page. In my experience as a regular VfD contributor, the obvious false positives are not that much of a problem, although they are annoying, and we currently need more people closing keeps at /Old (and even more so for merges). [[User:Jni|jni]] 20:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
{{vfd-or}}
::::Rather than a "hard policy" of expelling any page that does not conform to current policies, why not a "soft policy" that can serve as a gentler reminder that we have do have policies. By my count there are some 25 reasons for deletion currently in policy. Why not start marking each VfD debate with a template indicating what specific one of these deletion criteria and article falls under. See for instance the template to the right. Nominators would of course be under no obligation to add these templates, but someone could come along later and add a template, or several based on the nominator's reasoning.
{{vfd-no}}
::::Some votes will also have a template saying something along the lines of the template to the left. This allows the flexibility to delete any page that clearly should be removed to be deleted, but also encourages voters to pay attention to the deletion policy. The systematic annotation of VfD debates has several other advantages for those of us interested in analyzing VfD. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 22:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Per [[User:RedWordSmith|RedWordSmith's]] analysis below and for the reasons which follow I have to discourage this development.
:::::*The boxes will bloat an already large and slow-loading page;
:::::*There are likely to be (stupid) edit wars over ''which'' of the templates is appropriate for a particular VfD entry;
:::::*For the same reason that the tally boxes are a bad idea: these boxes may discourage a careful reading of the VfD nomination and arguments;
:::::*Some deletion-worthy articles may resist easy categorization; and
:::::*The VfD page isn't there for the convenience of people who want to analyze the VfD process—and you would have to read the reasoning in each VfD section ''anyway'', to verify that the reason(s) for deletion (or retention) actually ''do'' match the reason(s) cited in the nomination and the reason(s) in the templates.
:::::Can I call for a moratorium on the use of these template boxes until something of a consensus is reached here? I know [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] means well, but I'm not sure if this should be unilaterally implemented. --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 18:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::::Please do. They are plainly visible now, so people can form their opinion on whether or not they are useful. Several people have complained already on SimonP's talk page, so they're at least somewhat controversial. And if these boxes are to be policy, its implementation must be discussed beforehand. [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] 23:18, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that people need to make an argument when they list a page. However, won't removing listings when people don't make one just make VfD harder to use for people not very familiar with it? Just because they don't state one of the correct reasons for deletion doesn't mean a page should not be deleted. See also [[Wikipedia:Deletion requests]], where [[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] proposed having a separate section for the reasons for deletion to be listed. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 23:44, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Do you think my template proposal could help advance these ends? - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 23:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
::I do believe that template manages to implement my suggestion in the most obnoxious way possible. Well done - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 00:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that David Gerard does not consider lack of "notability" to be a valid grounds for deletion, and many other editors do. People find support for "notability" as a grounds for deletion in [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], although that policy article does not directly use the term "notability". Notwithstanding that, it is among the most common reasons for the nomination of an article for deletion, and among the most common reasons given when people vote to delete. It is a shorthand for "not encyclopedic" and for many of the grounds listed in [[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]] under "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base". (I notice Dan100 has recently changed the the phrase "no potential to become encyclopedic" as the first-listed reason for a VfD nomination out of [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_policy&diff=10402874&oldid=10137016] How can he edit key aspects of policy unilaterally?) When David says people are not citing valid reasons for deletion, he wants to force them to stop appealing to "notability", which he does not agree is a valid reason, or even valid shorthand for a valid reason. By the way, concerning the issue of notability as a grounds for deletion on VfD, I recommend the very insightful comments by [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] recently in [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Notability not a criterion for deletion?]] --[[User:BM|BM]] 02:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I do not like this idea at all. I think it makes the already terrible and blocky layout of the VFD page even worse, and it will increase, not decrease the size of the page. There are 389 current nominations on VFD right now. These templates are about 440 bytes each (actual rendered HTML size of VFD-or). The rendered VFD page is 274 kb in size. If you had 75% compliance with 1.25 templates for each nomination, you would ''increase'' the size of VFD by 160462 bytes (389 nominations * 75% of nominations with tags * 1.25 tags each * 440 bytes per tag, approximately 157kb). Nevermind that the language for these tags seems inclusionistically biased, and I do not like the idea of anyone possibly using these templates to make serial keep or delete votes based merely on the justification tag used. - [[User:RedWordSmith|RedWordSmith]] 08:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
::Consider [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Wars MUSH]]. The nominator called it vanity, which it may (if one of the game's creators placed it) or may not (if a player did, though even then it's borderline) be. Either way, though, the article's primary purpose is to promote the game, which is just one of thousands trying to get to fifty players online. Do we really want to see someone list it again with {{tl|vfd-sp}} instead of {{tl|vfd-vp}}, claiming that it was kept only because the vanity page assertion was disproved, and that those who especially dislike ads didn't look at the vfd past seeing the pretty pastel box? —[[User:Korath|Korath]] ([[User talk:Korath|Talk]]) 10:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
:::Vanity articles are a subsection of self-promotion articles, any vanity page is also promotional so I don't think that scenario is too likley. As to RedWordSmith's objections I agree that it does seem paradoxical to try and shorten VfD by adding stuff to it. My hope is that these templates will cause nominators, especially new ones, to at least keep policy in mind when nominating articles and thus refrain from nominating those that clearly do not belong. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 15:30, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Deleting VfDs unilaterally is inappropriate and would only lead to edit wars and bad feelings. Just leave them alone and let them run their course. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 08:14, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
'''Oppose.''' "Summarily removed" sounds as if they are to be removed by an individual sysop, much as speedy deletions are today. So, this is basically a proposal for a "speedy keep."
Speedy deletions work only because most think the guidelines are clear, and the articles that meet them are deletable. The boundaries set are narrow and well-defined.
If we thought the guidelines set by [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] and [[WP:NOT]] were equally clear, we could declare them to be cause for speedy deletion, and let sysops handle everything. No VfD needed.
If we think they are ''not'' clear, then inverting them and saying anything that does '''not''' meet them is a speedy keep is not going to work.
In fact the existing deletion policies work only because nobody tries to treat them as bright-line definitions. The policies are not complete. What they are is a summary of those actual VfD practices that are clear enough and have enough consensus so that they can be codified for the guidance of those entering the community.
Two ha-ha-only-serious scenarios under David Gerard's proposal:
:1) a nomination is deleted because the nominator said the article had no potential to become "encyclopaedic;" and policy says the criterion is no potential to become "encyclopedic." Invalid, surely. But what's the process for reconsideration? Is there to be a Votes for Renomination page and rules to go with it?
:2) Me and a couple of buddies have a quick talk on the WP:NOT talk page, reach consensus that articles should not be removed just because they are advertising, remove that clause from WP:NOT, remove all the "advertising" nominations from VfD. WP:NOT is reverted, but it was policy during the ten minutes in which we deleted the articles. Wasn't it?
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 13:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* I believe a strict adherence to policy-as-written runs countery to the nature of Wikipedia, because it doesn't allow for the fact that consensus and Wikipedia evolve over time. Over the past few weeks, I have seen a number of VfD nominations that were said to be 'not according to policy' by one or two disagreeing users, but that do actually get a flood of ''delete'' votes, and thus end up deleted because of consensus.
* Also, because of ongoing discussions on VfD, articles may end up deleted for another reason than the one it was originally given. If an article is nominated as 'vanity', it may turn out to get deleted because people think it's 'unencyclopedic' instead. But with David's suggestion for summary removal, the article could be unlisted from VfD as soon as it is found that the article isn't actually 'vanity'.
** The best thing in this case would be for votes with 'vanity' given as the reason to be discounted. However, admins don't usually seem to do more than a raw count, so the result will be prejudiced against the article. Likewise with a nomination that makes an incorrect assertion like "800 google hits" when in fact over 8000 can be found. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 17:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***I don't think that would be a good idea. An editor may explicitly state 'vanity' (or another reason), but agree with the deletion for other reasons as well. With respect to the specific term 'vanity', many editors (rightly or not) have adopted a very broad, inclusive definition that encompasses concepts like fancruft and plain absence of notability (for biographical articles). I don't think it's appropriate for an admin to act as a mindreader (though I still expect them to use good judgement in evaluating VfD outcomes). Ultimately, the question is one of whether a consensus exists that an article does not belong on Wikipedia—full stop. (Hypothetical case: 4 votes for deletion due to "vanity", 4 votes for deletion due to "bandcruft", 2 votes to keep. Drop one category of delete votes and there's no clear consensus left even though 80% of voters thought the article needed to go.) We also don't want to open the can of worms of excluding "keep" votes because they're for the "wrong" reasons. --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 17:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
****In your example, you don't know that those 4 votes would still be for delete if the voters realized it wasn't vanity. In my case, I would probably change from delete to keep. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 18:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
***With respect to the second point, if the nominator makes a verifiably factually incorrect statement (with respect to Google count, for example) someone on VfD usually corrects them within the first couple of votes. I think most editors who've been on VfD for any length of time know to take nominations (and all comments) with a grain of salt. --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 17:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
* As a side point, I believe the pastel categorizing boxes impair legibility of the VfD page, not to mention needlessly increasing its length, and reiterating what the original nominator already said. Of course, I do agree that a nominator should list a plausible reason for deletion - but the large majority of all nominators do.
* Wikipedia should not be an exercise in courthouse law (not to mention bureaucracy). Adding extra rules and procedures is not going to make things easier on anyone. [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] 17:14, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
== Little tally boxes...? ==
{| style="float:right;text-align:center;border: 1px solid black;"
!Keep!!Delete
|-
|8||0
|}
I've noticed that little boxes are starting to spring up on some VfD entries. (A sample is to the right.) I wonder about their usefulness for a few reasons. First, they're manually updated, and most editors don't...so the count is usually incorrect. Once or twice I've noticed ''more'' votes recorded in the box than appear in the commments. Second, I fear that they encourage a militant us-against-them sort of mentality on VfD...more of which is ''not'' required there. It seems to run counter to Wikipedia's consensus-building philosophy. Third, the count doesn't address conditional votes, or distinguish between votes for redirection, merging, and keeping. Finally—and perhaps most importantly—it may discourage people from reading through the entire discussion. Editors may be inclined to say, "I don't see what's important about Article X, but it has a lot of keep votes; I better slap a '''delete''' on it" without looking to see ''why'' the article has accumulated so few negative votes.
Vote counting is something that's handled by an admin at the end of VfD, and the admin should be exercising judgement anyway. Any thoughts on these curious little boxes? I'm inclined to suggest they be excised on sight. --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 20:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you. Wasn't this discussion also held in [[WP:TFD]] few days ago? [[User:Jni|jni]] 20:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::So it was; I'm embarrassed to say I missed that discussion, which seems to have covered the points I raised. Oh well. Is it legitimate to cut out the little box if we see one, then? --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 21:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I've been removing them wherever I've run across them. Just about all have been added by [[User:GRider|GRider]], who has been asked several times to stop; however, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GRider&diff=next&oldid=10774965 doesn't much seem interested in listening]. (Ominously, I chided another user today who added one, thinking they were the norm.) —[[User:Korath|Korath]] ([[User talk:Korath|Talk]]) 21:51, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
::::I seriously thought these were becoming the norm when I ran across them. I shall delete all that I see, including mine. -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 23:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let us confirm this as consensus then. See [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes]]. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 06:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
| 