This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 1 January 2007–31 December 2007. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Does anyone else feel that users should not be able to comment on debates regarding their subpages or user pages? I would like to know others opinions regarding this. Jorcoga Yell! 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Far from discouraging the creator's comment, I think that unless the user has left Wikipedia or there is a really gross violation such as a privacy violation involving another user (in which case the page would probably be speedied rather than MfD'd anyway), it's imperative that we give the creator of a page notice of the MfD and an opportunity to be heard before deleting a page in userspace. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the discussions above, I see that Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Deleting_failed_policies showed support for the idea that deletion of policy pages and the pages of Wikipedia organisations with history should be deprecated in favour of a form of inactivation or historicalisation or archiving. I would add guidelines and essays in here as well. Organisations would mean WikiProjects and other Wikipedia namespace pages that have an active history. The idea is threefold: (1) That the history be preserved as a record; (2) That the history be preserved to avoid repetition of the same mistakes; (3) That policy pages be archived in case consensus changes in the future.
I am proposing that this be made much clearer on the MfD pages (where most of the deletions of this stuff is proposed). People should move away from voting delete to voting something like tag historical or inactivate or close down.
These considerations should apply to any Wikipedia namespace page. Outright deletion should be reserved for recent bad-faith ideas (this does not mean good-faith ideas gone wrong), patent nonsense, and the like. Anything with a history should be stuffed into an archive, instead of being deleted. Recent ideas that have potential can be userfied to allow development before returning to the Wikipedia namespace.
Please discuss this proposal below. Carcharoth 11:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is with the way we do debates in the first place. I nominated WP:PAIN for deletion via MfD. In truth, I don't care whether it is deleted or not. It doesn't matter. I want it deactivated, and that's really what the debate is about. Few will care what will happen after that (although some will). I suppose, technically, I should not have MfD'd but but sought a consensus to deactivate. But where? We needed mass participation in order to arrive at a definitive decision. A talk page discussion would have had a) limited involvement 2) probably skewed participation as it selects those already watching the page. Centralised discussions are slow and again a minority sport. I suppose MfD could encourage people to !vote delete/keep/archive etc. But the problem with multiple options is that they tend to result in a lack of clarity in the end. Perhaps we need Wikipedia:Processes and projects for closing? Or use common sense and say that if the MfD vote is to delete, then afterwards those who care can decide between outright deletion and historicising - without anyone quoting the deletion result at them.-- Docg 12:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I support the notion of keeping things around so we can review what was done before and not repeat old mistakes. So this idea seems sound to me. Whether it is new, whether we need elaborate process, whether we need policy modifications is not as clear but I certainly support the sentiment, and support its application to (at least) the two recent policy/process/project deletion proposals we've seen... ESP and PAIN. Is MfD too blunt an instrument, as Doc says? Perhaps. But it's what we have, and another process (Policy for Deletion, anyone) seems a bit overkill for now. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've always considered that MfD should be renamed "Miscellany for discussion", but I think the problem with that name is obvious. — Centrx→ talk • 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, here comes the tricky bit. Is it possible to get a list of all deleted pages from the Wikipedia namespace? ie. Anything starting "Wikipedia:". A partial list could be generated by looking through the archives of MfD, but I wonder if there is any simpler, more authoratitive way? Another possibility is to use the deletion log to obtain a list of all the pages ever deleted (undoubtedly a horrendously large number), and pick out the "Wikipedia:" ones from that. These are actually rather simple requests that don't seem to be available because no-one's ever asked for them. In case anyone is interested, or remembers, failed Wikipedia proposals have been deleted in the past, and one of the reasons I assumed that it was done rather blithely was because of the immense discussion I had to endure to get Wikipedia:Numbers need citations undeleted at WP:DRV to be put through the proper process of marking as rejected. The debate was here (the following MfD was relatively painless in comparison). This is what leads me to wonder how much policy debate has been speedy deleted without being archived instead. Not something I lie awake at night worrying about, but something to consider. Carcharoth 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
While I was over at the WP:DRV archives, I looked up Wikipedia: pages that were listed there. I looked through October-December 2006. Here are the results (the first one is particularly interesting, referring to "recordkeeping purposes"):
Obviously the individual reviews would have to be looked at, but I wonder how many of these deletions would have been rejected under the proposal to strengthen the "archive policy/organisation/community stuff" proposal above? Carcharoth 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As an addendum to this, I am still worried that some people voting delete have the impression that things can be retrieved from deleted pages indefinitely (ie. 5 years later) for historical purposes, rather than just temporarily (if the deletion was a mistake, or is overturned). I asked about this on the technical area at the Village Pump, and I got a response from Brion Vibber:
Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. (Brion Vibber, 19 January 2007) [4]
Hopefully this will help clear up any confusion in future MfDs, and people will be clear that if there is any chance that something might be needed for future reference, then it should be archived, not deleted (remembering that I brought this up specifically in relation to project space, not article space). I've seen lots of people say (when debating archiving versus deletion) "deletion is not really deletion", and "if you need to look at it later, you can always get an admin to undelete it". Can we make it clearer on the relevant pages that these are not acceptable arguments in MfDs? Carcharoth 11:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Do I bring a user talk page that consists of nothing but copyvio material here, or to WP:CP? Thanks, delldot | talk 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I have just nominated this portal for deletion. Is there any way that the current discussion can be separated from the previous discussion the previous time the portal was deleted? Atomic1609 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the proper method for listing an MFD item that has been listed before? Regards, Navou banter 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the current {{ md}}/{{ mfd}} template:
but what do you think of my new version below:
I made the colour slightly better, and it should look better than the current peppermint-green shade. -- sunstar net talk 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This page was once considered for deletion but everybody forgot about it since the discussion was... deleted. I would please ask someone to delete the page without delay because, anyway, it is now useless. Thank you.
-- Scroteau96 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I see three active disscussions yet there are 51 pages in this category. Any clues?-- BirgitteSB 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
— xaosflux Talk 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
i understand that my page is being considered for deletion- but i also want to let you know that i have stopped using my page for messaging, and i have told everyone else on my page to not message anymore either, so i would request my page not being deleted, but to remain for veiwing purpouses only please, thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/qtangel7772 ( talk) 05:06, 22 February 2007
Any reason for the removal of the table of Contents? The page is long and difficult to navigate without one - especially with all the instruction creep which seems to now be dominating the top of the page. With a ToC it's easy to see at a glance whether there are any new debates worth checking out... it'd be much appreciated by me if it went back. Grutness... wha? 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Could someone help me out and do a mass deletion for me? I don't know how to do a mass delete. The said requested deletions are these userboxes, which I believe to be inflammatory and offensive:
I apologize for this nomination anonymously, but I have locked myself out of my main account with a wikibreak. Thanks. 64.178.96.168 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
anyone who wants to do detective work can look at subpages of Wikiman232 and possible sockpuppet Cyberstuff, theres plenty of crap in there. 129.98.212.164 00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Before, closed debates were transcluded; now they're listed. Does anyone besides me support indicating the result besides each item of the list, as is half-done? Gracenotes T § 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
For those caught unawares (including me) we now appear to have a "table" namespace. Since tables are essentially templates, I would suggest that the (inevitable) deletion discussions about tables take place on WP:TFD. >Radiant< 08:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the dated sections for these four days got trashed somehow. I went ahead and sorted them out by the signature date on the original nom, but in case something is in the wrong section, that's what happened. If you feel something is under the wrong date now, feel free to move it, but please keep the signature timestamps intact. Gavia immer (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If I find a user that is copying (literally a lot of/all of the information) from another's user page, can the user's page be posted for deletion? Cheers!! - Zachary crimsonwolf 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mediabistro, which may need some attention. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please convert to using one-day log files transcluded into the MfD page, like almost all of the other XfD processes do, or MfDs cannot effectively be transcluded at Wikipedia:Deletion today. For example, todays MfD page would be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Log/2007 August 2. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If I wanted to nominate a defunt portal for deletion, is this the place to do it? Are there deletion policies/guidelines that apply to portals? Thanks! / Blaxthos 12:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
About 2 months ago, I created an archive for the talk page of Heroes. The talk page is already getting pretty big, so I was about to create Archive #15. Yes, 15! I looked at the dates and noticed the first archives barely have any discussions in them. One archive even has only 1 day worth of discussions.
So, I thought of merging archives from #2 to #10 into a single archive. I would edit #2 and put all discussions from #3 to #10 in it, then delete #3 to #10. The last step would be to rename #11, #12, #13 and #14 to #3, #4, #5 and #6 respectively. Makes sense? allowed? feasible? I'd like to know before starting the procedures. -- Lyverbe 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's official: You guys are totally useless. "Come here and we'll help you out! Just do this and we'll do that!". Sure, we do our part, but when it comes to do yours, you disappear. If you can't do the job, quit. I'll take care of the pages myself. -- Lyverbe 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. It seems someone else did it last week by doing it wrong; move the *entire* page to the archive, abruptly stopping all conversations in the middle. Now I'm stuck with dead archives in my hands. I'll have to undo everything that I've done to bring order to chaos. Weee! And for those "real life issue" or whatever, if they couldn't do the job, the shouldn't have offered it. "I'll help you out. I barely don't have time for it, I rarely have access to a computer and always forget to do things... but I'll help you out!". Duh. Yes, I'm angry, angry for trying to make something look better and instead having it all screwed up because of other people. -- Lyverbe 11:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
All too often, the first a user hears about this is the appearance of an MfD notice on a page in his user space: Come and justify your page's existence with a time limit. If he hasn't watchlisted them, he may first find out when he finds a redlink.
I think it would be preferable to explain to our fellow editors, on their talk page, why we think their user page is not in compliance with policy, and point out {{ db-author}} if they agree. Often this won't work, but WP:MfD will still be here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Added. We could go further, and suggest this even before prodding. (i.e., talk to the author, wait a while, and then prod (why not?)). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A new essay has been written concerning the importance of considering the impact of MfDs on editors' feelings, Wikipedia:Editors matter. Please leave comments on its talk page. Walton One 14:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that template:md2 and template:md3 have been replaced by their counterparts mfd2 and mfd3, so I've changed the references to them on this page. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A centralized discussion {{ cent}} of what should be done with inactive projects and if, when, and how they should be deleted, archived, merged, etc. is being undertaken at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects. Interested parties are invited to participate in discussion there.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjects don't "belong" to the creator. Creator requests to get rid of Project may be valid, particularly when the most likely alternative to delete would have been userfy; but simply stating "Speedy Delete - Creator request" suggests too much power by the creator to request deletion of projects which may have some history. I'm reposting this same issue at the centralized discussion on this topic referenced above.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the MFD date header is linked. - jc37 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there are so few people watching the procedural, let alone the formatting, issues that we can just do this. I was about to do it myself right now but the only question I'd have is will the closing procedures need to be modified at all so as to ensure discussions are properly archived by date? I've never done that here and I do note that the closing procedures have some differences for each XfD type.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to initiate discussion of a new prerequisite regarding the nomination of user pages and user subpages. Currently, there is no previous discussion required with said user before user pages can be brought to MfD. I would like to propose the addition of a new prerequisite:
It is my intention to encourage WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF and to prevent newbies from being scared off. This is related to, but independent from, the concept brought up in the essay Editors matter. Please provide comments and feedback regarding the proposed prerequisite. Tweaking will be expected, of course. Regards.-- 12 Noon 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that but was disappointed that nothing really resulted from it. Here I am proposing taking action. I reckon suppose a dab-template can be developed that could be placed on the user's talk page prior to MfD, similar to {{
Uw-username}}, which is used when a username is questionable and requests the user change it on their own rather than being blocked. Thoughts?--
12 Noon
23:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there are actually two issues here: 1) pre-notification to try to resolve the matter without resorting to MfD, I think that's a good policy and waiting a time period with no response would support the final MfD if it got there; 2) notification of the nomination, which is what I was thinking of. There is no present requirement to notify someone that you've nominated a page. If they aren't closely monitoring the page, they might not even know about the MfD (unless it's for their actual main user page, in which case they'll get a notice.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I was not thinking of the situation when a user is using their userpage as a storage unit for deleted material. In that situation, certainly {{
uw-userpage}} is not very effective. Perhaps a level-2 template should be devised for this situation, or {{
MFDWarning}} should be used and those situations would qualify for immediate MfD. Thoughts?--
12 Noon
17:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I posted a message the other day on
Template talk:MfD to add a line about notifying the user.--
12 Noon
17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it be equally appropriate, if a userpage is being used as a forum, to reference using {{ Uw-socialnetwork}} also before bringing a userpage to MfD. I was thinking it should be used in addition to rather than instead of {{ uw-userpage}}. Thoughts?-- 12 Noon 2¢ 23:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Where should I nominate a couple of my sub-pages for deletion? I just don't know a good place to put them. - Yancyfry ( talk) 03:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I edited the "Skip to active discussion" banner at the top of the page. Previously, the arrow linked to its image; I just changed some code around so that it now links to the section, along with the text. A sideeffect is that it is now below the text, rather than beside it; is this acceptable? Regards, Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The changes discussed above were reverted without discussion. Any feedback would be appreciated, or I would think it should be restored. Thoughts?-- 12 Noon 2¢ 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 1 January 2007–31 December 2007. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Does anyone else feel that users should not be able to comment on debates regarding their subpages or user pages? I would like to know others opinions regarding this. Jorcoga Yell! 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Far from discouraging the creator's comment, I think that unless the user has left Wikipedia or there is a really gross violation such as a privacy violation involving another user (in which case the page would probably be speedied rather than MfD'd anyway), it's imperative that we give the creator of a page notice of the MfD and an opportunity to be heard before deleting a page in userspace. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the discussions above, I see that Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Deleting_failed_policies showed support for the idea that deletion of policy pages and the pages of Wikipedia organisations with history should be deprecated in favour of a form of inactivation or historicalisation or archiving. I would add guidelines and essays in here as well. Organisations would mean WikiProjects and other Wikipedia namespace pages that have an active history. The idea is threefold: (1) That the history be preserved as a record; (2) That the history be preserved to avoid repetition of the same mistakes; (3) That policy pages be archived in case consensus changes in the future.
I am proposing that this be made much clearer on the MfD pages (where most of the deletions of this stuff is proposed). People should move away from voting delete to voting something like tag historical or inactivate or close down.
These considerations should apply to any Wikipedia namespace page. Outright deletion should be reserved for recent bad-faith ideas (this does not mean good-faith ideas gone wrong), patent nonsense, and the like. Anything with a history should be stuffed into an archive, instead of being deleted. Recent ideas that have potential can be userfied to allow development before returning to the Wikipedia namespace.
Please discuss this proposal below. Carcharoth 11:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is with the way we do debates in the first place. I nominated WP:PAIN for deletion via MfD. In truth, I don't care whether it is deleted or not. It doesn't matter. I want it deactivated, and that's really what the debate is about. Few will care what will happen after that (although some will). I suppose, technically, I should not have MfD'd but but sought a consensus to deactivate. But where? We needed mass participation in order to arrive at a definitive decision. A talk page discussion would have had a) limited involvement 2) probably skewed participation as it selects those already watching the page. Centralised discussions are slow and again a minority sport. I suppose MfD could encourage people to !vote delete/keep/archive etc. But the problem with multiple options is that they tend to result in a lack of clarity in the end. Perhaps we need Wikipedia:Processes and projects for closing? Or use common sense and say that if the MfD vote is to delete, then afterwards those who care can decide between outright deletion and historicising - without anyone quoting the deletion result at them.-- Docg 12:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I support the notion of keeping things around so we can review what was done before and not repeat old mistakes. So this idea seems sound to me. Whether it is new, whether we need elaborate process, whether we need policy modifications is not as clear but I certainly support the sentiment, and support its application to (at least) the two recent policy/process/project deletion proposals we've seen... ESP and PAIN. Is MfD too blunt an instrument, as Doc says? Perhaps. But it's what we have, and another process (Policy for Deletion, anyone) seems a bit overkill for now. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've always considered that MfD should be renamed "Miscellany for discussion", but I think the problem with that name is obvious. — Centrx→ talk • 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, here comes the tricky bit. Is it possible to get a list of all deleted pages from the Wikipedia namespace? ie. Anything starting "Wikipedia:". A partial list could be generated by looking through the archives of MfD, but I wonder if there is any simpler, more authoratitive way? Another possibility is to use the deletion log to obtain a list of all the pages ever deleted (undoubtedly a horrendously large number), and pick out the "Wikipedia:" ones from that. These are actually rather simple requests that don't seem to be available because no-one's ever asked for them. In case anyone is interested, or remembers, failed Wikipedia proposals have been deleted in the past, and one of the reasons I assumed that it was done rather blithely was because of the immense discussion I had to endure to get Wikipedia:Numbers need citations undeleted at WP:DRV to be put through the proper process of marking as rejected. The debate was here (the following MfD was relatively painless in comparison). This is what leads me to wonder how much policy debate has been speedy deleted without being archived instead. Not something I lie awake at night worrying about, but something to consider. Carcharoth 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
While I was over at the WP:DRV archives, I looked up Wikipedia: pages that were listed there. I looked through October-December 2006. Here are the results (the first one is particularly interesting, referring to "recordkeeping purposes"):
Obviously the individual reviews would have to be looked at, but I wonder how many of these deletions would have been rejected under the proposal to strengthen the "archive policy/organisation/community stuff" proposal above? Carcharoth 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As an addendum to this, I am still worried that some people voting delete have the impression that things can be retrieved from deleted pages indefinitely (ie. 5 years later) for historical purposes, rather than just temporarily (if the deletion was a mistake, or is overturned). I asked about this on the technical area at the Village Pump, and I got a response from Brion Vibber:
Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. (Brion Vibber, 19 January 2007) [4]
Hopefully this will help clear up any confusion in future MfDs, and people will be clear that if there is any chance that something might be needed for future reference, then it should be archived, not deleted (remembering that I brought this up specifically in relation to project space, not article space). I've seen lots of people say (when debating archiving versus deletion) "deletion is not really deletion", and "if you need to look at it later, you can always get an admin to undelete it". Can we make it clearer on the relevant pages that these are not acceptable arguments in MfDs? Carcharoth 11:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Do I bring a user talk page that consists of nothing but copyvio material here, or to WP:CP? Thanks, delldot | talk 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I have just nominated this portal for deletion. Is there any way that the current discussion can be separated from the previous discussion the previous time the portal was deleted? Atomic1609 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the proper method for listing an MFD item that has been listed before? Regards, Navou banter 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the current {{ md}}/{{ mfd}} template:
but what do you think of my new version below:
I made the colour slightly better, and it should look better than the current peppermint-green shade. -- sunstar net talk 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This page was once considered for deletion but everybody forgot about it since the discussion was... deleted. I would please ask someone to delete the page without delay because, anyway, it is now useless. Thank you.
-- Scroteau96 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I see three active disscussions yet there are 51 pages in this category. Any clues?-- BirgitteSB 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
— xaosflux Talk 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
i understand that my page is being considered for deletion- but i also want to let you know that i have stopped using my page for messaging, and i have told everyone else on my page to not message anymore either, so i would request my page not being deleted, but to remain for veiwing purpouses only please, thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/qtangel7772 ( talk) 05:06, 22 February 2007
Any reason for the removal of the table of Contents? The page is long and difficult to navigate without one - especially with all the instruction creep which seems to now be dominating the top of the page. With a ToC it's easy to see at a glance whether there are any new debates worth checking out... it'd be much appreciated by me if it went back. Grutness... wha? 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Could someone help me out and do a mass deletion for me? I don't know how to do a mass delete. The said requested deletions are these userboxes, which I believe to be inflammatory and offensive:
I apologize for this nomination anonymously, but I have locked myself out of my main account with a wikibreak. Thanks. 64.178.96.168 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
anyone who wants to do detective work can look at subpages of Wikiman232 and possible sockpuppet Cyberstuff, theres plenty of crap in there. 129.98.212.164 00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Before, closed debates were transcluded; now they're listed. Does anyone besides me support indicating the result besides each item of the list, as is half-done? Gracenotes T § 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
For those caught unawares (including me) we now appear to have a "table" namespace. Since tables are essentially templates, I would suggest that the (inevitable) deletion discussions about tables take place on WP:TFD. >Radiant< 08:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the dated sections for these four days got trashed somehow. I went ahead and sorted them out by the signature date on the original nom, but in case something is in the wrong section, that's what happened. If you feel something is under the wrong date now, feel free to move it, but please keep the signature timestamps intact. Gavia immer (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If I find a user that is copying (literally a lot of/all of the information) from another's user page, can the user's page be posted for deletion? Cheers!! - Zachary crimsonwolf 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mediabistro, which may need some attention. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please convert to using one-day log files transcluded into the MfD page, like almost all of the other XfD processes do, or MfDs cannot effectively be transcluded at Wikipedia:Deletion today. For example, todays MfD page would be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Log/2007 August 2. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If I wanted to nominate a defunt portal for deletion, is this the place to do it? Are there deletion policies/guidelines that apply to portals? Thanks! / Blaxthos 12:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
About 2 months ago, I created an archive for the talk page of Heroes. The talk page is already getting pretty big, so I was about to create Archive #15. Yes, 15! I looked at the dates and noticed the first archives barely have any discussions in them. One archive even has only 1 day worth of discussions.
So, I thought of merging archives from #2 to #10 into a single archive. I would edit #2 and put all discussions from #3 to #10 in it, then delete #3 to #10. The last step would be to rename #11, #12, #13 and #14 to #3, #4, #5 and #6 respectively. Makes sense? allowed? feasible? I'd like to know before starting the procedures. -- Lyverbe 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's official: You guys are totally useless. "Come here and we'll help you out! Just do this and we'll do that!". Sure, we do our part, but when it comes to do yours, you disappear. If you can't do the job, quit. I'll take care of the pages myself. -- Lyverbe 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. It seems someone else did it last week by doing it wrong; move the *entire* page to the archive, abruptly stopping all conversations in the middle. Now I'm stuck with dead archives in my hands. I'll have to undo everything that I've done to bring order to chaos. Weee! And for those "real life issue" or whatever, if they couldn't do the job, the shouldn't have offered it. "I'll help you out. I barely don't have time for it, I rarely have access to a computer and always forget to do things... but I'll help you out!". Duh. Yes, I'm angry, angry for trying to make something look better and instead having it all screwed up because of other people. -- Lyverbe 11:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
All too often, the first a user hears about this is the appearance of an MfD notice on a page in his user space: Come and justify your page's existence with a time limit. If he hasn't watchlisted them, he may first find out when he finds a redlink.
I think it would be preferable to explain to our fellow editors, on their talk page, why we think their user page is not in compliance with policy, and point out {{ db-author}} if they agree. Often this won't work, but WP:MfD will still be here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Added. We could go further, and suggest this even before prodding. (i.e., talk to the author, wait a while, and then prod (why not?)). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A new essay has been written concerning the importance of considering the impact of MfDs on editors' feelings, Wikipedia:Editors matter. Please leave comments on its talk page. Walton One 14:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that template:md2 and template:md3 have been replaced by their counterparts mfd2 and mfd3, so I've changed the references to them on this page. Giles Bennett ( Talk, Contribs) 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A centralized discussion {{ cent}} of what should be done with inactive projects and if, when, and how they should be deleted, archived, merged, etc. is being undertaken at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects. Interested parties are invited to participate in discussion there.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjects don't "belong" to the creator. Creator requests to get rid of Project may be valid, particularly when the most likely alternative to delete would have been userfy; but simply stating "Speedy Delete - Creator request" suggests too much power by the creator to request deletion of projects which may have some history. I'm reposting this same issue at the centralized discussion on this topic referenced above.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the MFD date header is linked. - jc37 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there are so few people watching the procedural, let alone the formatting, issues that we can just do this. I was about to do it myself right now but the only question I'd have is will the closing procedures need to be modified at all so as to ensure discussions are properly archived by date? I've never done that here and I do note that the closing procedures have some differences for each XfD type.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to initiate discussion of a new prerequisite regarding the nomination of user pages and user subpages. Currently, there is no previous discussion required with said user before user pages can be brought to MfD. I would like to propose the addition of a new prerequisite:
It is my intention to encourage WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF and to prevent newbies from being scared off. This is related to, but independent from, the concept brought up in the essay Editors matter. Please provide comments and feedback regarding the proposed prerequisite. Tweaking will be expected, of course. Regards.-- 12 Noon 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that but was disappointed that nothing really resulted from it. Here I am proposing taking action. I reckon suppose a dab-template can be developed that could be placed on the user's talk page prior to MfD, similar to {{
Uw-username}}, which is used when a username is questionable and requests the user change it on their own rather than being blocked. Thoughts?--
12 Noon
23:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there are actually two issues here: 1) pre-notification to try to resolve the matter without resorting to MfD, I think that's a good policy and waiting a time period with no response would support the final MfD if it got there; 2) notification of the nomination, which is what I was thinking of. There is no present requirement to notify someone that you've nominated a page. If they aren't closely monitoring the page, they might not even know about the MfD (unless it's for their actual main user page, in which case they'll get a notice.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I was not thinking of the situation when a user is using their userpage as a storage unit for deleted material. In that situation, certainly {{
uw-userpage}} is not very effective. Perhaps a level-2 template should be devised for this situation, or {{
MFDWarning}} should be used and those situations would qualify for immediate MfD. Thoughts?--
12 Noon
17:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I posted a message the other day on
Template talk:MfD to add a line about notifying the user.--
12 Noon
17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it be equally appropriate, if a userpage is being used as a forum, to reference using {{ Uw-socialnetwork}} also before bringing a userpage to MfD. I was thinking it should be used in addition to rather than instead of {{ uw-userpage}}. Thoughts?-- 12 Noon 2¢ 23:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Where should I nominate a couple of my sub-pages for deletion? I just don't know a good place to put them. - Yancyfry ( talk) 03:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I edited the "Skip to active discussion" banner at the top of the page. Previously, the arrow linked to its image; I just changed some code around so that it now links to the section, along with the text. A sideeffect is that it is now below the text, rather than beside it; is this acceptable? Regards, Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The changes discussed above were reverted without discussion. Any feedback would be appreciated, or I would think it should be restored. Thoughts?-- 12 Noon 2¢ 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |