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.

Nominating for deletion to WP:SALT the title against further creation. Article was previously deleted in May 2018 via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Au5 and was salted after opposition by its original creator. Subject has no foreseeable sign of notability. 99.203.31.232 ( talk) 20:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please nominate that draft for deletion? It is a blatant hoax, there are no references, and I don't even think such an object would exist. Thanks. 2407:7000:A269:8200:E81D:62:66AF:8807 ( talk) 22:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Page was speedy deleted on October 28 under CSD G3. CoolSkittle ( talk) 17:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Two essays on whether communism is dead or still alive have been created in draft space and have been nominated for deletion. While I have concurred that the essays should be deleted, this is probably a class project, a good-faith error, and the instructor should be advised that this sort of project violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, the two essays are using the same sources, which were likely provided to them by the instructor. I have reported the matter at the education noticeboard and have advised the authors of that report. Another possibility is that this is not a class project as such, but that the students are independently using Wikipedia as a web host for their papers. In either case, the class, if my hypothesis is right, has resulted in good-faith misuse of Wikipedia.

I would suggest that regular editors at this noticeboard consider that if two or three drafts or user pages have similar subject matter, it is likely to be the result of a class. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see the thread here:

• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#New criterion for rejected / advertisement-declined drafts

-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Legacypac entered an !vote of Speedy Blank on two user pages, and then blanked the pages. This was obviously intended to be a case of Ignore All Rules, including the notice that the page in question should not be blanked and the rule that XFD templates should not be removed. My question is whether the notice on the XFD template is meant to be taken literally and seriously, in which case there was a good-faith error, or when it is permitted for a single non-admin user to take unilateral action in good faith that bypasses the discussion and stops the discussion. (The XFD discussion has been suppressed because the XFD template has been deleted by the blanking.) My take is that this was a good-faith error and that the editor should be told not to do it again, but maybe there are other opinions. (If a good-faith editor can decide to blank a page, what is to prevent a meatpuppet of the article creator from deciding that, in good faith, the discussion should never have started and the template should be deleted?) Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a good faith solution just like CSDing a page at MfD. The material was simply an old copy of an article which once removed is no longer a problem. We can't remove a userpage completely so blanking is fine. No one is finding these MfDs via the templates on the pages anyway and anyone else is free to object at the MfD. Someone should close the MFDs - I would but I've not been able to get the script to work. Legacypac ( talk) 05:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I knee-jerk approve. It sounds analogous to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect which I knee-jerk opposed before finding it was actually a good idea. I invite User:Godsy to comment and maybe even document it.

By "speedy", I believe it means the action could'av should've been taking immediately instead of listing at MfD. Anything to counter the common urge to fill MfD with busywork. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I also approve of the action. Personally, I wish all non-speediable inactive userspace pages we see here were blanked instead of nominated for deletion, saving us all time and maybe saving the rare editor a BITE. I have frequently been tempted to do this sort of thing myself. My only complaint is that no {{ Userpage blanked}} was left on the blanked pages, which I've fixed. It's obvious to everyone who's participated here that Legacypac is not gaming the system to prevent deletion; I don't see any need to treat it as a general question. A2soup ( talk) 21:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

First, I still object to speedy blanking and speedy redirecting. I don't think it is comparable to speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is not unilateral. It at least requires an admin to review the speedy deletion, and gets rid of things that never should have existed. However, I do not see the need to hurry up the process, let alone to appoint oneself as king and bypass the process, with blanking or redirection. Second, however, is there at least agreement that the MFD tag should be left standing? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy blanking and speedy redirection are both easily reversed and when done at MfD, pretty highly visable. If no one undoes the action or seriously objects the MfD can be closed. The notification tag on an MfD'd page is pretty pointless once placed. There are no organic traffic to the page unlike an article page. The creator has been notified on their talk. Anyone else coming to the page is coming from the MfD listing page anyway. I don't see the big deal at all. Let's be efficent and move to the next page. Legacypac ( talk) 18:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The question has been raised again as to whether the deletion of an article via a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion is a basis for speedy-deleting a new draft. I have also asked that, and have not gotten a consistent answer. However, I think that the stronger argument is that deletion at AFD is a strong factor toward deletion at MFD, but not conclusive as to a draft, and so not a basis for G4. The deletion discussion at AFD found that the article didn't belong in article space. It didn't find that it didn't belong in draft space. The article might have been ordered blown up at AFD for any of various reasons, such as being hopelessly biased due to conflict of interest, or being two-thirds English and one-third either another language or buzzspeak or jabberwocky. After all, our official advice to autobiography writers is that, if you are notable, let someone else write the biography. So I think we now have a statement that an AFD discussion doesn't warrant speedy-deleting a draft, but can be used as an argument for deleting the draft. An MFD discussion does warrant speedy-deleting the draft (and may warrant a block of the editor or blocking the title). Comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure a hard and fast rule is the answer. Titles get created in Draft and Mainspace all the tie that have been the subject of an AfD and are not speedy deleted. The issue is recreation where the content is the same or similar. We also have a time element. If the title was deleted at AfD with a clear finding on notability and then quickly recreated in Draft essentially the same to keep it live, that should be G4 eligible. Legacypac ( talk) 21:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

With the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive21#Deletion of SPI, and LTA, subpages closed, I think the conclusion is that when WP:SPI or WP:LTA subpages are nominated at WP:MfD, it is a good idea to place a Template:Mfd notice at WT:SPI. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a question about a particular issue in MFD and whether it was a good-faith use of MFD as Miscellany for Discussion. On October 27, User:AngusWOOF nominated a bundle of drafts on the deaf in Nazi Germany. Angus asked how to proceed, and got a passing comment from Bkissin, but at that time no !votes, probably because it didn't look like a request for !votes. Then it was relisted, with yet another comment, and relisted again, and Legacypac said to Keep them for drafting. Then it was relisted again, and I said to Keep All, because I hadn't seen an argument for deletion. Then we had some discussion, and Angus made specific suggestions. I have a two-part question. First, as the reviewers here understand the purpose of MFD, was this a good-faith misuse of MFD? I think that it was, because it wasn't really about deleting them, but about how to develop them, for which there are other forums including draft talk pages. However, I am willing to listen to a reasoned argument why discussions like this should be at this board. Second, I will ask again, do the reviewers think that the scope of this board should be expanded from Miscellany for Deletion to Miscellany for Discussion, so that it can consider issues such as this? My own opinion is no, because we don't need to use this noticeboard for such discussions, because discussions of what to do with drafts, other than deleting them, can be done on draft pages, or at WikiProjects. However, I am willing to listen to a reasoned argument.

Part of what is on my mind is I would like to know whether to expect more such questions, and, if so, whether we should be ready to attend to them in less than a month after they are listed the first time.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a misuse of MFD to apply it to drafts at all. Just let them expire naturally after six months. For drafts that should obviously be deleted, there are plenty of other means such as G1–G5, G10−G12, A1–A3, A10, A11, depending on the content. I see way too many MFD nominations on drafts that could be improved but for some reason the nominator is impatient to rid draft space of them. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Virtually no drafts should come to MfD. The CSD#G* series covers everything needing action.

09:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Note: tendentiously resubmitted drafts, drafts resubmitted without meaningful improvement, are welcome at MfD, where barring reviewer cockup they seem to be snow deleted. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If someone wants to “discuss” drafts, tell them to go revitalise WP:N/N. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Many Drafts need to be deleted for many valid reasons. If you don't want to participate, do something else. Legacypac ( talk) 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The comments appear not to be responding at all to what I was asking about. Do we need to split this thread into two threads, discussion of drafts and deletion of drafts?

Deletion of Drafts

I have nominated drafts for deletion if they are being resubmitted tendentiously without material improvement. I agree that some of the nominations of drafts for deletion are unnecessary, but some drafts are submitted persistently, and will not expire, and need to be killed to stop wasting review time. The ability to Reject drafts will reduce the resubmission problem. (It won't eliminate it due to various species of beans.)

I am very interested in the ability to tag drafts for A1, A2, A3, A10, and A11. Please explain to me how this is done. I think that moving the draft into article space in order to speedy delete it would be considered abusive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I contend that some drafts will never be improved as long as their principal author is trying to improve them in a way that is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct - some editors freaked out at even the suggestion that someone might consider moving pages to mainspace to seek deletion even at AfD, even though there are tons of pages in mainspace eligible for speedy deletion already. Legacypac ( talk) 01:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As discussed on my talk page, my original intent of posting the drafts to MfD is to figure out how to delete a set of content forked drafts tendentiously submitted in parallel under different draft names. I noticed they were all specific topics coming from what seems to be chapter names for a book, so that's why I suggested including a book article. As it stands, if MfD is not the place to figure that out, then I'll just boldly rename and reorganize those drafts as I see fit, which is per the recommendations I posted. The drafts then don't need to be immediately deleted, and will just let the 6 months hit it. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Heroes and Villains of Deaf During Nazi Germany was not a deletion nomination, should not have been at MfD, but instead belonged at a WikiProject talk page, either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation for process issues or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany for content issues. MfD is not a WikiProject help desk. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I understood you were seeking deletion, which I was against. No issues with the nomination from me. Legacypac ( talk) 02:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Moving a draft to mainspace to have it deleted is damaging to mainspace, is disruptive, and people doing that will be blocked.

A history of active disagreement, whether tendentious or less, is a good reason to come to MfD. MfD should not be used for worthless things just because someone can’t find anyone to argue with about it anywhere else. If you have WP:BOLDly fixed a draft, for example by redirecting or blanking it (aka pseudo-deletion), and you are opposed or reverted, then come to MfD.

A1 or A3 in draftspace should be ignored or blanked. Draftspace is junkspace, and cleaning up the junk by bringing it to this page is just damaging to this page.

A2 (foreign language) would be inappropriate because draftspace is the proposer place to translate pages between different language Wikipedias. En.wikipedia is the dominant Wikipedia, and so it happens that sometimes it is used as an intermediary between two other Wikipedias. This is ok, just leave it alone. There are no time limits.

A11, something obviously made up, I strongly pushed for A11 to be extended to draftspace, at WT:CSD. I’m not sure what happened there... — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, okay, I will take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany if more of these surface, and have MfD for the tendentious cases. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Also be encouraged to be bold. Your ideas are pretty good. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am still very interested in how to tag drafts as A1, A2, A3, A7, or A11. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Drafts

I was originally asking about what appeared to me to be a use of MFD to discuss which drafts should be improved, and I did not think that this was the proper place. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• MfD is most definitely not the place to discuss draft improvements. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The nominations for 21 December 2018 are being put at the bottom due to some sort of glitch. Is it permitted to move them, or should I wait for an admin to do that? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I moved them. WP:BOLD CoolSkittle ( talk) 18:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Is someone going to close the discussion? It's been almost a month since someone last commented on it. CoolSkittle ( talk) 22:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that deletion nominations citing the WP:DMFD-enabling criteria "repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement" should provide diffs. There are too many nominations where this is alluded to inaccurately. It is not reasonable to expect MfD reviewers to forensically examine the history of nominated pages to check this is true, and I have many times found that the nominator has made a misleading nomination in this respect. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It look like this user page /info/en/?search=User:UsualDosage has a MfD tag but no template or entry on MfD Abote2 ( talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please provide simple instructions for a Non-Administrative Close (NAC) of an MFD that has been speedily deleted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: See, eg, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drpangpeng/sandbox -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Qari Waheed Zafar Qasmi.jpg -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, User:DannyS712. I see the result. I was asking whether there is an easy way to get the result other than copying and pasting a lot of stuff around the MFD page. Is there a macro (I mean script) that I can use for the purpose? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: Well, I use WP:XFDC, and set the result to custom. Then you can use {{ logid}} to link directly to the deletion. Is that what you were looking for? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't make the script work but if you click edit then show MfD tools a guide comes up and you can copy the top part over above the header of the MfD. After I fill in the RESULT I pasted the same text for the bottom then deleted the extra part and changed one word. Legacypac ( talk) 20:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Template for Discussion deletion discussion completed as No Consensus. The previous RFC was mentioned, and the RFC, which is unchanged by the No Consensus, basically declawed the parasitic animal. The consensus of the previous RFC was that the template is a polite request not to apply G13 to a draft. It does not preserve the draft from G13, because it can be either rudely ignored or declined with a polite apology. So the template still exists, and apparently the template isn't nearly as much of a problem as we had thought, in that it doesn't preserve pseudo-promising crud indefinitely. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I spent a little time cleaning up the category. Very little left in there. Interest in using the template has fallen way off. Legacypac ( talk) 02:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• I thin the template remains a good idea, even if it did suffer being part of a G13-antiG13 battle. If draftspace is to work, this template has to work. There needs to be a way to draw attention to promising drafts that need help. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it as a fancy comment. Just don't want it to give a page super powers. Legacypac ( talk) 05:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think that is where this is now.

Do you, Legacypac, ever see old long unedited drafts that need attention, being too interesting to be left to die painlessly, but not good enough to meet WP:Stub? The idea I like is for this tag to give it another 6 months minimum, and for it to be now navigatible from an advertised category for this specific purpose. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We are getting a fair number of nominations for drafts that have been copied into mainspace other than via AFC. If they are moved into mainspace via a Move, whether via AFC or otherwise, a redirect is left in draft space, which is the proper action. Can something be done about the nominations where the draft and the article are duplicates? Maybe not. If I review a draft and find that there is also an article, I either redirect the draft to the article, or put a note on the draft requesting that it be compared against the article, or in a few cases, also put a note on the article talk page requesting that the draft be reviewed against the article. So a draft shouldn't be tagged for deletion because there also is an article, but tagging the draft for deletion appears to be a good-faith error. What needs to be done if a draft is tagged for deletion and there is an article is to redirect the draft. However, the instructions for MFD say not to delete, blank, or move the page while the deletion discussion is in progress, and a redirection is a cross between blanking, deleting, and moving. Is there anything that can be done to minimize these taggings, or do we just allow them to run for seven days and close as Redirect? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A speedy redirect of an MfD nom is my preference. No need to waste time on discussion. Legacypac ( talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - I know that you say that, but where is the authority for a speedy redirect in that case? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The MfD tag does say not to remove it but if you are closing the MfD you can/must remove it. Some MfDs can and should be closed early and implementing a redirect called for by policy is a good reason for an early close. If someone objects they can unredirect and unclose but I've never seen that before. Legacypac ( talk) 20:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit by Legobot appears to have shifted the March 22 XfD nominations below the March 21 nominations. At the time I write this, the list of current discussions is mis-ordered: March 23 is displayed at top, then March 21, March 22, and March 20. Does anyone know what's going on here? Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 19:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

One user has started tagging pages by topic for deletion sorting. I've never seen this at MFD before. Is there a policy supporting or opposing this activity? It seems like a big waste of time and space. Legacypac ( talk) 20:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Rather than discussing this here in the correct place, the user has taken the discussion to AN. Legacypac ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Did we break MFD? Two discussions are showing as links only. I also deleted one like that earlier which I will now restore. I figured it was a duplicate. Legacypac ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Legacypac: transclusion limit reached -- DannyS712 ( talk) 20:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

About 25 discussions are in Old Business now and could be closed which would help (most of the ones not displaying are old business). Is it a number of discussions or size of the discussions issue? If size we could move the big lists to a linked subpage. Legacypac ( talk) 20:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've closed some MFD's and rapidly archived closed old closed ones. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've posted the archived but unclosed ones at requests for closure. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@ PMC: "archived but unclosed" or "overdue"? We shouldn't be archiving any unclosed MFD's. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

All the ones you rapidly archived were still open when you did that... ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Premeditated Chaos: argh - they were appearing as closed, I've reverted and kept them here, reverted the ANRFC listings. We need to resolve these here. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We probably still need them listed at ANRFC since they've not been touched in going on 3 weeks. I shouldn't close them, and there aren't really many other MfD-regular admins. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Premeditated Chaos: I'm going through and closing a bunch of MFD's right now. Feel free to immediately archive any 'closed MFD's while this template-exceeds issue is occurring. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Premeditated Chaos: OK, I've processed a bunch to get rid of the exceeds problem, and archived only closed ones. If there are any old ones you would like to list at ANRFC still, please feel free. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't think it matters if you close on the archive page or the active page Legacypac ( talk) 00:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

noone is expected to watch or attend to discussions that are only listed on the archive page. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No but if you are about to close them it does not matter Legacypac ( talk) 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the still-open old ones to ANRFC with tweaked rationales. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, sounds good! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done April 8 is now lower than April 7. Legobot did that maybe because I bundled a nomination. I will try to fix it on desktop. Legacypac ( talk) 05:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the whole page broke now. Legacypac ( talk) 20:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/old and removed the pages below the old line, which brought back a lot but not all of the current pages, but my removal was reverted so everything does not display again. I manually archived one discussion that had closed, it was petty easy to do. Just copy the discussion link to the archive and add it to the list under the right date, noting the result. Legacypac ( talk) 20:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe my last nomination messed things up somehow. I got an error message when I did it. I removed it from the list and all the debates came back so cross our fingers things continue to work. Legacypac ( talk) 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Looked carefully at this and I think one nomination was trying to translude everything on the page again which would doubke the load. Not real sure but it happened automatically via twinkle so not anything I did by hand. Legacypac ( talk) 16:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't keep up

I've been rapid archiving closed discussions, but we're still hitting the limit. The huge 'portal' nomination volume is just overwhelming the layout - hopefully this will slow soon. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You are doing valuable work. When I last checked about 39% of remaining portal space was up for deletion. Not sure when BHG will go ahead with a second mass nom. Several editors are also working on a mass nom of bios and then band portals. Multiple page noms are less taxing per page then individual ones. They lead to big discussions however that might balance off the space saved by bundling. Some day we will go back to problem drafts and userspace pages. Legacypac ( talk) 16:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any instructions on how to !vote, or how not to !vote, for MFDs? If there are, I would like to include a request to please be very careful in putting anything in your statement that transcludes a template. Transcluded templates that have sections in them muck up the numbering of the Table of Contents of the MFD main line that the trains run on. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Is someone keeping track of Portal MfDs? They appear to all get deleted. Does this mean that the portal MfD nominators have got sufficiently refined criteria to start up a sensible discussion on a Portal CSD? It has been weeks since I noticed a MfD Portal nomination as clumsy as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language. Clumsy nominations destroy the credibility of a nominator when arguing for a new CSD criterion.

I opposed a portal CSD at WP:AN, because that was not a suitable forum for working through the issues, and because WP:NEWCSD criteria were not being objectively discussed. Proposing new CSD criteria requires good evidence of meeting the new criterion criteria if there is any hope of success, and recent MfD results might be enough. Who is doing the nominating? What Portals are you nominating, and what are you not nominating? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I picked English language because it is a high profile portal that was very busted. In the end it was rolled back to a much earlier version because of the MfDs, so in effect the version I brought to MfD was deleted/removed. Legacypac ( talk) 05:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a meaningful conversation going on in any central place, regarding portals? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

If you don't count Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines, then no. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, I would count that page for sure. Would you believe I have never seen it before? It looks heavy. Is there a particular thread to begin with? Is it going anywhere? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:POG for the shortcut. I don't think revised guidelines discussion is going anywhere. A very unfocused discussion by portal fans. The MfDs are setting some significant precedent that can be written into the guidelines, tightening them. Legacypac ( talk) 07:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

As for keeping track of MfDs see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates starting in late Feb 2019. It's almost all portals. Legacypac ( talk) 07:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - A substantial majority of editors at WP:AN favored a WP:X3 criterion to get rid of the portals by User:The Transhumanist. However, User:GoldenRing closed that discussion by supervoting, saying that there was a consensus that some better way would be proposed to get rid of the portals. They didn't offer one, so we have been deleting the portals piecemeal, but you are one of the regulars at MFD. If you have been on a break for a while, the nominating is mostly being done by User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Legacypac, with a few thrown in by User:UnitedStatesian, and even fewer by me. Nearly everything that we nominate is deleted, but I am not sure that there is any single criterion that will be objective and unambiguous. Bad portals are like hard-core pornography. Judge Stewart knew it when he saw it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There are 50 ways to make a bad portal. I am amazed at the number of bad ideas tried. Legacypac ( talk) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In the last ~6 weeks of MFDs, several major criteria for deletion have emerged:

1. Broken portals where no good version exists: e.g the list of article is empty or invalid, the page is full of errors, or where they never got beyond preliminary construction
2. Automated portals with no history of manual version, which are a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of another page, by using a set of links which is already available on another page. The biggest set by far has portals based on a single navbox, which got overwhelming support at two highly-attended MFDs ( first batch, second batch), but also portals built off a single list or multiple navboxes which are already transcluded on the head article
3. Portals with narrow scope: either numerically (e.g. where there are few non-stub articles), or where the set is tightly bound (e.g. single company, single band, single person
4. Portals on indignificant topics: where topic may have lots of coverage, but is too niche to attract many maintainers or readers. Pageviews are often an indicator.
5. Currently automated portals which are WP:REDUNDANTFORK of another page, but were previously manual if all non-automated versions are broken or near-empty
6. Portals which could be better implemented as a single navbox
7. Portals on vague, ill-defined or hotly-contested topics, when it would be hard to produce a stable, NPOV set of topics

Only one of those seems to me to be a potential CSD: #2, automated portals which are a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. That is simple, clear, easily-measured. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• • BHG was working on an RfC. Was it derailed? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria appears silent for more than a month. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, @ SmokeyJoe, it was derailed. And in hindsight, I think it was not considering sufficiently fundamental conceptual issues. I will mark it as historical.

Meanwhile, the discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ireland is throwing up a lot of interesting idea, and it looks like that will provide a way forward, by asking more fundamental questions than my draft considered. I have summarised them here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be a good idea if, for the meantime, we could have a separate page (perhaps a temporary one) for Portals. Right now MfD is overloaded with Portal nominations and it's proving hard to follow developments on the page (specifically the non-portal ones). Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 02:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5 bottom of the first paragraph of the MFD page (this page is a talkpage for) there is a link to a filtered list. The filter is not perfect because it can't filter out portal discussions that have a custom name but it gets you almost what you want. Legacypac ( talk) 03:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• to the good list above I'd add:

1. 8 Portals that closely duplicate the scope of another portal.
2. 9 Portals for neighbourhoods, smaller cities, cities within a metro area with a portal and US counties/Indian Districts/Canadian regional districts and similar third level admin divisions.

Legacypac ( talk) 03:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And still the mills grind on. I strongly disagree with attempts to formulate general policy on portals based on discussions splurged across dozens of MfDs purporting to be about individual or small groups of portals.

I propose a time-limited moratorium on portal deletions. Moratorium, as the ongoing deletion campaign cannot but have a chilling effect on any constructive activity in portal space. Time-limited, to allay any concerns that such constructive activity would never in fact get under way. Please refer to WP:VPR#Proposal: Halt the mass deletion of non-spam portals and focus on achieving consensus on portal guidelines (especially, of course, my post at the bottom) : Bhunacat10 (talk), 13:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@ Steel1943: As regards your reversion of my edit at Template:Mfd2, I certainly see the issue! You've got a good point, but MfD is in a weird place at the moment; at least in theory, isn't the real issue that we probably shouldn't be bulk-nominating pages in this way? I suppose it doesn't say not to, but wouldn't it make more sense to do what AfD does, namely just add an instance of (in this case) {{ pagelinks}}? I recall seeing someone somewhere ( BrownHairedGirl maybe?) bring up the process of creating subpages and then redirecting as a negative. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• @ Amorymeltzer: Yes, WP:MFD is lacking in the department of having instructions on how to list bulk nominations ... I totally agree with that. But I'm not following the reasoning why bulk-nominations shouldn't happen in the manner I alluded. For a recent example I did, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:FLAG-/templates and all of its incoming redirects; if multiple pages are strongly related to a point where having separate discussions for each of them is tiring (in regards to posting the same comment on each individual discussion) and confusing, I do not see how that is of benefit to our editors (with the exception of when a WP:TRAINWRECK starts.) ... The purpose of the redirects though is to ensure that if a page is nominated, the amount of nominations a page has starts getting counted (such as by "(2nd nomination)", "(3rd nomination)", etc.) If the redirect does not exist and a page that is part of a bulk nomination is nominated a 2nd time, the nomination page will not contain a "(2nd nomination)" disambiguator when it is created automatically. Then, of course, it causes issues with searching through discussion archives to find the 1st nomination of a page. The aforementioned is a similar issue that pops up in WP:AFD a bit as well, especially if the a page is nominated again but at a different title or a different capitalization than it was when it was nominated originally. (Also, pinging Legacypac since I've noticed that they do grouped nominations on WP:MFD the same way I do ... redirects included ... to see if they have any input.) Steel1943 ( talk) 15:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• @ Amorymeltzer and Steel1943: unfortunately, redirecting MFD pages badly breaks future uses of WP:TWINKLE for the page concerned. I explained the problem in this post [1] on Legacypac's talk, but LP just deleted [2] the explanation with the edit summary i warned you not to post this kind of stuff. Get lost. That was merely the last in many such dismissals by Legacypac of MFD procedural issues, whether raised by me or by others, so I strongly recommend that you do not rely on that now-indef-blocked editor for any advice on how to use MFD without disruption. (see the current lng thread at WP:AN for the wider history). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • PS finding previous nominations dos not involve searching through discussion archives to find the 1st nomination of a page. The simplest method is simply to check the history of the nominated page, using ctl-F to search for "mfd". Also use whatlinkshere, select namespace "Wikipedia", and look for mentions at "miscellany for deletion". There is no need to break Twinkle by creating redirects. I delete any such redirects I find. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • PPS @ Amorymeltzer:, yes grouped MFDs should not be created in this way.

The way to do it without causing damage is

1. Manually create the grouped nomination page at WP:Miscellany for deletion/SomeMeaningfulDiscussionName
2. Manually tag the listed pages with {{mfd|SomeMeaningfulDiscussionName|help=off}} ::For maximum clarity, I use the edit summary<code><nowiki>MFD: proposed deletion. Discussion at [[WP:Miscellany for deletion/SomeMeaningfulDiscussionName]] ... but some editors used a shorter form, e.g. "MFD"

Not difficult, and avoids any glitches. No redirects needed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the aforementioned method is the most helpful because it 1) as I mentioned above, causes archive issues, and 2) assumes that all users understand how to search through archives in the method mentioned above. Having the MFD page being automatically created with a "(2nd nomination)" disambiguator is the most helpful to editors, in addition to keeping the archives organized. Using a search just requires way too much effort when a simpler method exists ... what I've been doing. And I'd actually say that it keeps Twinkle on a clear path since it should not be creating a page if it exists, even if it is a redirect, so I'm not seeing the twinkle concern at all. Archive organization trumps whatever is mentioned above, especially considering that everyone cannot expect to recall everything and all changed that have happened over Wikipedia since it was created almost 20 years ago. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well at least you're consistent! I think the larger issue is that, aside from you, Legacypac, and (I presume) some others, it's not how most folks are doing it. Maybe it should be — although behavior at AfD would suggest not — and maybe not, but it's harder for everyone when there's different behavior for such things. I don't know if there were conversations way back when about setting things up like this at AfD. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

...Yeah, I'm consistent on that. 😁 Steel1943 ( talk) 20:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oh dang, yeah, just realized per the comment above that Legacypac is currently indeffed. Anyways, seems like there's an assumption that Legacypac may have started this method and I followed suite; If anyone started it, it was me and Legacypac saw what I was doing and mirrored it themselves. Or maybe we both figured this method out individually. Not sure. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• @ Steel1943 writes above it keeps Twinkle on a clear path since it should not be creating a page if it exists, even if it is a redirect, so I'm not seeing the twinkle concern at al.

It seems that Steel didn't get the point I raised to Legacypac, which is that Twinkle does not handle the redirects as might be hoped. I am not sure hat User:Amorymeltzer sees the problem either.

I checked the redirects which Steel1943 had created, and found amongst them Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3).

To demonstrate the effect, I use Twinkle to MFD Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3).

Twinkle made three edits, but reported an error "Creating deletion discussion page: Failed to save edit: The article you tried to create has been created already."

Here are the three edits

1. [3] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion ‎ Adding :Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3). (TW)
2. [4] User talk:Dodger67 ‎ Notification: listing at miscellany for deletion of Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3). (TW)
3. [5] Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3) ‎ Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3)

Now look more closely.

See #1: [6], where actually appears at MFD is the old closed discussion

See #2: [7]. What actually appears at User talk:Dodger67 is adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3) and ... which again, links via the redirect to the old closed discussion.

Same with #3 [8], the MFD tag at Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3).

My edit #1 to the MFD page was promptly reverted [9] by LegoBot

I reverted edits 2 and 3.

That's all because your well-intentioned redirects break Twinkle.

If you have any doubts or unclarity about this, try it yourself: use WP:Twinkle to MFD Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3). You will get the same, broken result. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• My answers by numbers
  1. That sounds like a bot or tool problem, and should be addressed by the bot's or tool's operator. We should not don't accommodate for malfunctioning bots or tools to sacrifice: We address their operators to get them fixed.
  2. Interesting. You are claiming that the 3rd nomination would use a "(3)" disambiguator. That is just demonstrably false, as I have already stated above; It would be "(3rd nomination)". And if the page specifically named "Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3)" was nominated three times, then the MFD page would be named "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3) (3rd nomination)". Again, if Twinkle isn't working right, it needs to be addressed by its programmers. We control the tools, the tools don't control us.

So, from what I'm reading above, the idea above is to blatantly sacrifice proper archiving and navigation of pages because future page creation is not compatible with custom-made tools and bots. That's just straight up backwards. Can't support that at all; it's akin to us biological beings being taken over by androids. (Is Terminator real?) We aren't supposed to further break stuff to accommodate malfunctioning tools: We should fix the tools. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Steel1943, please read what I wrote. I am not claiming that the 3rd nomination would use a "(3)" disambiguator. Absolutely nothing of the sort.

You have entirely misread the situation. The (3) is part of the name of the page being nominated.

That assertion of blatantly sacrifice proper archiving and navigation of pages is all based on your assumption that every time "Foo" is discussed at MFD there must be a page named "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Foo". That is not established practice, either at AFD or at MFD; it is simply something that you have chosen to implement in some cases without being aware of the consequences. If you want to do this, then get a consensus for it, rather than doing it unilaterally and breaking long-established tools.

The tools are unlikely to be changed unless you can show that consensus to change established practice.

No matter how many times you make such redirects, it will not lead to some sort of perfect correlation as you suggest, unless you

1. do it for every single page nominated at MFD, no matter who nominated it, including e.g. the 2,555 pages nominated at the two mass deletions of portals: one, and two, or the dozens of batched nominations since;
2. track every page which has been nominated at MFD and make similar redirects every time it is renamed.

That may or may not be a good thing to do, but that should be decided by consensus, not by you demanding that established practices be changed becuase you have unilaterally decided that to create your idea of a perfect correlation.

Please stop doing it, unless and until you establish a consenus that this is appropriate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Neither side has established anything per consensus yet, so neither side is wrong. However, since you have now gotten to the point of essentially demanding that I do something, which I consider rather intolerable, I'm done discussing this with you and will now be going back to enjoying my real life. Oh, and one last thing ... that WP:GRAVEDANCING you were doing with Legacypac earlier was rather rude and totally uncalled for. I'd recommend you check your emotions and responses before attempting to communicate with me again. Have a blessed day. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not been "gravedancing". And all I have been trying to do is to show that you well-intentioned innovation has disruptive consequences which you were unaware of. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be OK for me to find a way to auto !vote "delete" on all portal nominations? I think I have got the hang of consensus on the sort of portals being routinely nominated. My rationale on each will be "Redundant to the parent article, this portal adds nothing, not even navigation assistance, the presentation of content striped of citations is not in keeping with content policies, it is a net negative". I may want to hold back on doing this on the top ten portals, but I'm note sure.

I don't think I have even !voted "keep" on a portal except for my old WP:ATD idea that they would be more efficiently archived. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - There doesn't seem to be much traffic here. Compose a template that is meant to be substituted that inserts the text into the MFD. I have a few of them for the more common comments in declining Articles for Creation. Different forum, but same technology. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

My question was intended as provocative. Auto-comments are unworthy and a sign of the forum not working. My point is, these portal nominations are cookie cut, and all snow deleting. If you have to make that same comment many times, then the situation calls for anticipating the common problem and pre-empting it. If all the nominations are the same, and deserving of the same reviewer comments, then they should be bundled. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I request that whenever a portal is nominated for deletion, the responsible WikiProject be notifed of the proposed deletion and given a chance to update or repair the portal. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 21:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support this. MfD is barely watched, even if people watchlist their portal watchlists are very busy. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

“chance to update or repair the portal”? No. Chance to participate in the MfD discussion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• It sounds good in theory, but we don't do this anywhere else (e.g. we don't even "notify a project" if an article is nominated for deletion) - additionally many projects are basically dead, and some portals could be related to many projects. So, I think it is a good idea for the nominator to consider, but wouldn't want to make it a "rule". — xaosflux ^Talk 01:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed but. Perhaps “explicitly consider”, I.e. say why not if not, could be the rule. The difference here, why this is different to anywhere else, is that these MfD discussions are deleting large amounts of version history on barely watched pages, at a low participation forum. What might be some reasons to NOT advise a closely related WikiProject? The inactivity of the WikiProject shouldn’t be a good reason. Even if notifications don’t bring participants, they provide helpful records. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @ SmokeyJoe: the "closely related" part of your comment may be subjective. Simply throwing a project banner on the talk page can't be the identifier. Having someone from the project rank it high or top importance - that may be good. Thoughts? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • WikiProject outsiders throwing WikiProject banners on talk pages is an old common mistake that I think has completely undermined the useful purpose of WikiProject banners. WikiProject banners are next to useless indicators that the WikiProject ever cared for a page, they probably didn’t even know about it.
        “Subjective” doesn’t mean “bad”. I would ask for a good faith attempt to notify possibly interested editors. I think it is probably just a ritual, as probably no one will respond, but that adds evidence to the rationale for deletion (no one cares), and it is good practice. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @ SmokeyJoe: I didn't mean "bad" just that it may be inconsistently measured. We can update the instructions to consider this easily, just want to have some guidance for how to tell what the projects are that someone could reference. Realistically, I doubt most nominators will read the directions :( — xaosflux ^Talk 23:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
          • We can just ask the Portal MfD nominators here by pinging. Are there four of them? I’d start with User:BrownHairedGirl, she and I have previously argued about CfD notifications, for usercat nominations. I suggest that due to actual material, sometimes old and multiauthpred, being deleted, this situation is an even better case to err on doing more notifications than less. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
            • If a portal which is MFDed has been tagged with a WikiProject banner, then that WikiProject will be notified through article alerts. If the WikiProject has chosen not to to do so, that is their choice. So I don't intend to make such notifications myself, but of course any other editor is free to to do so if they want to.
              Since the automated portals were mostly deleted over a month ago, my nominations over the last month have overwhelmingly been of abandoned portals between 5 and 14 years old. If in all that time, nobody has taken a few seconds to link the portal to the WikiProject, that's a pretty good indication of the lack of interest which has led to the abandonment. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
              • Let's invite User:Buaidh to do some Portal MfD courtesy notifications. Given the very participation at MfD, more reviewers would definitely be a good thing, and inviting any possibly interested others should certainly not be considered improper canvassing. Just be careful to not be accused of spamming. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
                • Use of Template:Mfd notice to notify Wikiprojects would be fine. And so would tagging the portal's talk page with the WikiProject banner.
                  However, given Buaidh's appalling conduct at MFD:Portal:Maine (it was a torrent of ABF wrapped around numerous classic examples of WP:ATA), I reckon that the chances of Buaidh following WP:CANVASS are pretty low. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
                  • I think the dangers are very low, repeated unacceptable behaviour will be noticed and responded to. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
                    • I don't think I deserve these personal attacks. I have tried to refrain from any further harsh comments. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Management. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to track the comings and goings of the regional portals, many of which have been, or will be, deleted from this site. I've created a page at User:Buaidh/Geographic portals to show the status of the current, former, or proposed regional portals. I would appreciate your comments and corrections to this page. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

When a geographic portal is deleted, it may discourage Wikipedia users who live in that nation or region. This does not help our efforts to retain Wikipedia editors. Your comments please. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• It would be good to try to attract their interests into improving articles, or coordinating the improvement of related articles through involvement with the most related WikiProject. Portals seem to attempt to facilitate neither of these things. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

How do you propose to attract their interest?  Buaidh  talk contribs 20:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Buaidh. It's been a long time since I saw topic-focused WikiProjects as attractive, but they definitely were. They were attractive in the days of excited editing, filling in swathes of missing articles and material. What I remember as important, and sustaining, is the personal affinities of people, between each other and with the subject matter. I think the best way to try to reintroduce that is by personal invitation to editors that you see editing constructively on topics of common interest. I see from your userpage that you advertize your membership of 38 WikiProjects. Is that too many? Are you spread too thin? One of them is Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography. Can I suggest improving the visual attractiveness of the top of the page? There is a "To do list". I think that without some co-ordination, eg who is working on what when, to do lists are not attractive. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography looks like a non-human notification log, and that is extremely unattractive. If I were invited, I'd like at that talk page, and would be turn off immediately by the inactivity. Archive the notifications. Invite targeted editors by pinging from that talk page, in addition to talking to them on their user_talk pages. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but it doesn't address the problem of attracting and retaining editors from small and overlooked nations and regions. That has become my number one priority. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how the deletion of a Portal could possibly affect editor retention. Almost none of our current editors are editing portals, or reading them. This is a red herring. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This essay is hostile and demeaning to new users. Wikipedia absolutely needs editors; it doesn't maintain itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.194.222 ( talk) 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I have submitted the page to MFD on your behalf. If you wish to comment further, you can do so at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. -- RL0919 ( talk) 05:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

When a heritage-style portal is deleted, it typically has multiple subpages. Normally the subpages are deleted as G8, subpages of deleted pages. I have seen that occasionally the subpages are overlooked and left alone, in which case anyone who notices can tag them for G8. My question is whether there is a more automatic process for cleaning up. Can or does the close script semi-automatically delete the subpages? Alternatively, can or does a bot delete the orphaned subpages? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not an option in XFDcloser currently, you'd have to ask the creator if that's a feature that can be added. I've gotten in the habit of using Twinkle's D-batch feature to clear them out after a closure after poor UnitedStatesian had to remind me to do so about a thousand times (sorry! I'm better now lol). Not sure if other regular closers do that habitually, but maybe remind them on their talk page so they get in the habit? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I would add that often a redirect in the portal space has subpages, and those subpages are very commonly missed when the redirect is speedied after its target is deleted. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 03:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Mfd#Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2019. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick question: should userboxes always be discussed at MfD, even when seeking a merge outcome? PC78 ( talk) 20:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• They should not. If the merge is a good idea, your sure, do it. If not, don’t. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, yes. But you could say that about anything. The question is, where should a formal merge discussion be held? PC78 ( talk) 22:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Merge discussions are normally held at the proposed destination page's talk page per Wikipedia:Merging#Step_1:_Create_a_discussion. If you are talking about a userbox in the User: namespace, it's almost always a bad idea. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If it is something with crazy high visibility, like say Template:Babel - then MfD is an OK venue if there is little participating at the talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
      • MfD is only ok if there is a valid reason for deletion, or pseudo-deletion. To advertise a merge, use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. If this is about cleaning others’ userspace, don’t do it without very good reason. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I am attempting to delete Talk:List of snooker players by number of ranking titles/Archive 1, which currently has no article. Perhaps there was an article in the past. Can Miscellany for deletion be used for a Talk page? The statement in the lede * Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces seems to say so to me.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 16:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages with no article can be tagged for WP:G8 speedy deletion. However, in this case there is an article at List of snooker players by number of ranking titles, so there is no reason to delete the archive of its Talk page. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for that answer. I have been chasing this situation for days. Perhaps there could be an article paired with the Talk page. What do you think of doing that? (I am not so bold as to do it myself immediately)-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not typical to have one. Really this is something that should be better handled in the UI, so that users are guided to the appropriate parent page for the article rather than a subpage that does not need to exist. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated TheGamer article for the AfD, but it somehow merged with the user deletion discussion. Can you please help sort this out. I couldn't find trusted sources for TheGamer beyond rare press-releases. Thank you! -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 20:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Bbarmadillo: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheGamer (2005) was moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheGamer in 2015. You would have to nominate it again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheGamer (2nd nomination). Make that page and put [[ User:MJL]] in the edit summary. I'll clean up everything for you. Cheers, – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 20:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Bbarmadillo: Actually, Xaosflux seems to have an alternative idea. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Bbarmadillo and MJL: I already started fixing the first one, that old redirect isn't really important. The "2nd nom" option would have also been just fine! Bbarmadillo, you can put your nomination reason in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheGamer now. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Added here. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 20:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Xaosflux: lol you might need to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheGamer (2nd nomination) now. Conflicting advice ( edit conflict) – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 20:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ MJL:  Done thanks - see what happens when people ask for help, everyone trips over themselves trying to help :D — xaosflux ^Talk 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Legobot freaked out a bit on the recent months of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates - likely due to MfD flood and template expands exceeded problem. If anyone feels like doing some clean up of duplicate entries in there please feel free! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Xaosflux: The bot's still confused; I tried removing all duplicate entries roughly two hours ago and the bot just added more. ToThAc ( talk) 21:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Legoktm: can you check on your bot? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Think I've got it cleaned up until this month. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:King Arthur

• Delete as per nominator. No maintenance. Portal had 11 average daily pageviews in Jan19-Jun19, as opposed to 5334 for head article. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is not appropriate for you to support deletion and then advise recourse at DRV. if there is *any* cause to think there is procedural failure at play, raise it here and now. You may need to read WP:DRVPURPOSE. DRV is not a standard step for re-creations. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - I did read DRV Purpose yet again, as I did earlier when User:BrownHairedGirl agreed with me. See "Deletion Review may be used" (3) "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". That often has to do with new news about a subject, but it also can refer to a proposed new design for a portal that would justify a new version of the portal when the old version failed. It then says that editors may recommend to "Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation." While DRV is normally used to reverse a procedural error in the XFD, it is also available as a review check against frivolous re-creation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a prospect of significant new information? I think not, but if you do, you should bring to this anticipated significant new information. And if it does happen post-close, the first step is to raise it with the deleting admin.

If further down the track, there is new information that overcomes the XfD reason for deletion, then any editor in good standing may re-create it without going through DRV, and going straight to DRV is discouraged in favour of talking to the deleting admin followed by WP:REFUND. This normally applies to articles deleted at AfD where new information is new sources that meet WP:THREE, I really don’t see the applicability here.

Frivolous re-creations are re-deleted per WP:CSD#G4. WP:BLOCKing can also come into play.

By openly pointing to DRV, you are undermining the standing of the MfD, suggesting that post MfD there is another round of appeal. That is not the purpose of DRV. Decisions here should be considered final, for the purpose of the discussion here. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of DRV for Portals After MFD

The possible new information that I am referring to would be an improved design for the portal that does not rely on content-forked subpages, which rot, as well as a maintenance plan for the portal. I am not anticipating an improved portal design or improved portal maintenance in the near future. Whether that will be done in the medium-term future is not known to me because any initiative is up to the portal platoon.

Some Delete recommendations, including some of mine, say to delete a portal without prejudice to re-creation. Some Delete recommendations say that the portal should not be re-created. I am qualifying the non-re-creation statement by saying that any proposal to re-create the portal in the future should be reviewed by Deletion Review, one of the purposes of which is to consider new information, in this case a new design and better maintenance. "If you really think that you have a better idea after this MFD is closed, run it past DRV."

If the other editors here agree with User:SmokeyJoe that it is not appropriate to take ideas to replace deleted portals to DRV, I will stop making that comment in Delete recommendations. I think that at least User:BrownHairedGirl agrees that Deletion Review of new designs is a reasonable check on frivolous re-creation. There have not been any recent frivolous re-creations, but some members of the portal platoon have talked about re-creation before being discouraged. There were occasional frivolous re-creations in the past, resulting in zombie portals. (A contested G4 will go to Deletion Review via a different process anyway). Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @ SmokeyJoe: it is not appropriate to suggest that DRV would be an appropriate avenue for overturning a Portal MfD that closes as delete and is proceduarally sound, and you should stop including such suggestions in portal MfD discussions. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A contested G4 can go to DRV, and at the DRV the G4-judgement of the deleting admin will be examined. A borderline or failing G4 should go to XfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Any proposed re-creation of a portal using a more modern design can't go to DRV; it can go to the usual page creation screen. WP:G4 explicitly excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. Unless User:Spammer recreates SpamCo until it gets salted, deletion of a page does not preclude the future creation of a better page with the same title. Certes ( talk) 20:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Sometimes DRV entertains and acts on requests for de- salting, but a de-salting is down other roads from someone attempting a re-creation, and de-salting requests should really go to WP:RFUP. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)