Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Users commeting on own MfDs

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)

I would rather have them participate in the discussion with well-reasoned and insightful comments than wage a revert war or something else WP:POINTish. I see no good reason to prevent them from participating. Slambo (Speak) 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As long as the discussions are polite and fact-based, there is no reason to prohibit the user from participating and can be very good reasons to encourage them to participate. Incivility is a separate problem. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's no different than if an article writer comments on his own article at AFD. YechielMan 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The user should identify his involvement, should explain the reasons for creating/editing/deleting as he did, and (like anyone else) should be civil and stick to the facts. Often this person can save the rest of us a lot of research and speculation and assumption of bad faith. Barno 13:01, 13 April 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)

Commenting is fine; being disruptive isn't. I'd support a user commenting, as they may have things to bring to the attention of others. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MfDs of policy/guideline/essay and organisation pages

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)

Discussion

  • My arguments are given above. 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 don't think we need more infrastructure to implement this. Is there any reason that adding an explanatory section to MFD, noting that "longstanding essays, guidelines, policies, and projects are typically marked historical and deprecated in lieu of actually literal deletion" (or something like that...) wouldn't be enough? Serpent's Choice 12:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect from the above discussion from 2005, that such text did at one time exist and got lost for whatever reason. Carcharoth 12:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the relevant bit of text was there all the time: "Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors." - I'll highlight it so that people don't miss it. Carcharoth 12:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A good example of how to organise historical stuff and delete unecessary stuff is at User:Kenb215/Projects/WP:COMMsubCle - a page documenting the clean-up of the subpages of Wikipedia:Community Portal. Carcharoth 12:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The explanation has been there for awhile and it's also on WP:CSK. In general we don't delete proposals or old policy, but there have been a few notable exceptions. >Radiant< 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's strange. CSK says: "The page is a policy or guideline, or an active Wikipedia process. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy." - wasn't PAIN an active Wikipedia process? I suppose Esperanza and WikiProjects can be considered active processes as well, though 'organisation' would be a better word. Bureaucracy/community could describe all such pages. I am beginning to agree that MfD is not the best location for such discussions, because policy, guidelines, essays, community pages, process pages, organisation pages, should all be archived when shut down (or declared outdated or wrong), not deleted. Essays, as I said before, are generally userfied if not considered good enough for Wikipedia namespace. Carcharoth 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The answer to that is that WP:NOT a bureaucracy. The clause exists to prevent people from making WP:POINTy nominations of policy or process that they do not like. The discussion of PAIN started on ANI, and had it stayed there it would also have shut the board down. >Radiant< 15:19, 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)

  • Note that these are two rare and extreme cases. I do not recall an earlier succesful deletion of policy or process. Hence I doubt we need a new process or rule to deal with this. >Radiant< 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Some time ago someone tried nominating Wikipedia:Deletion Review for deletion, a nomination which actually garnered support from arbitrators, both former and current. I'm not sure, but I think that was a motivation for adding the "active policy/process clause to the speedy keep guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 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)

Wasn't CfD renamed this way recently? Carcharoth 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, the only problem with the name is that, in a way, it means "discuss anything you want". — Centrx→ talk • 07:22, 24 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)

I think you are mixing issues here. The general argument made for deleting a failed policy page is "it's useless but if properly tagged as {{ rejected}}, not actively harmful". The general argument against the long-term abuse pages has been "it's actively harmful" for any of several reasons. Failed or obsoleted policy proposals generally are kept so we can learn from them and not have the same good-faith discussions over and over. We have traditionally held them to a fairly low standard in deletion discussions (first VfD, now MFD). The Long-term Abuse pages, forgotten WikiProject pages and the others in your example list were not policy proposals and were evaluated against a different standard. I think that's appropriate. Simply being in the Wikipedia-space does not automatically trigger the tradition that we generally follow for good-faith policy proposals. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with most of the DRVs up there. I'm not suggesting that the deleted ones should have been kept, I'm just giving some examples for discussion. I'm rather pleased to find that the mass deletion of relevant (even if out-of-date) Wikipedia: pages hasn't happened according to the people posting here. I just got the impression in the WP:ESP and WP:PAIN MfDs that some people were rabidly arguing for deletion because they wanted to destroy with fire and wipe out all reference to the pages from history. I generally think that Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system would work quite well, but that never really seemed to take off. Carcharoth 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Update

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)

CV

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)

If you want it deleted, you can list it here. — xaosflux Talk 13:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:South Park

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)

Just make a seperate disucssion page, MFD/Page 2 for the translusion. — xaosflux Talk 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd nomination

What is the proper method for listing an MFD item that has been listed before? Regards, Navou banter 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just make a new Mfd page WP:MFD/Page '''2''']. — xaosflux Talk 13:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

MFD template

This is the current {{ md}}/{{ mfd}} template:

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy .
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.

Maintenance use only: {{ subst:md1}} {{subst:md2|pg=Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 2|text=}} {{subst:md3|pg=Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 2}} log


but what do you think of my new version below:

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy .
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.

Maintenance use only: {{ subst:md1}} {{subst:md2|pg=Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 2|text=}} {{subst:md3|pg=Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 2}} log

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)

If you're going to change it, I'd add something like "If you are nominating a user page or subpage, as a courtesy you are requested to notify the user of this" or something. 68.39.174.238 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like the green better; the new color makes this too close to the speedy deletion tags, and the two are wide apart in function. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I do like the green better, as a personal preference. Gracenotes T § 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the green better above, but there may be other colors I like better that have yet to be shown! — xaosflux Talk 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Groupe 71

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)

Done. — xaosflux Talk 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion

I see three active disscussions yet there are 51 pages in this category. Any clues?-- BirgitteSB 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. An example, User:Corbinb8 is linked to (through a userbox) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman. Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That might be it.-- BirgitteSB 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There were actually some old malformed MFD's in there, some kept pages that never got unlisted, and some pages that should have been deleted that never were. I've cleaned out this entire categor now, and it reflects only the current mfds or things related to mfd.

— xaosflux Talk 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

qtangel7772

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

TOC?

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)

Um... I see the table of contents, so I don't know. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a TOCRight translcuded in one of the discussions, since removed. — xaosflux Talk 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion

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)

Um, sorry so long to reply, but not a chance, if you really want to nominate them for speedy you should see WP:CSD not here. — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this has been discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (closed by you, actually!) and then again at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (2nd nomination). — The Storm Surfer 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha thaught it sounded familiar! — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous tip

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)

two others: trosk and fasten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.98.212.51 ( talk) 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Marking closed debates

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)

  • Support - I like the list instead of the transclusion, but it would also be nice to have that summary. Good call. -- After Midnight 0001 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tablespace

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)

Aaaaand it's gone again. Nevermind (for now). -- nae' blis 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It comes and goes :) We'll need more info about how it will be used to make that call, but that sounds about right. — xaosflux Talk 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

May 11-14 nominations

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)

Re:Copycat

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)

Usually not. Since this is an unusual situation (I have never seen it), you can post on a noticeboard or deletion discussion as individual cases arise. Shalom Hello 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediabistro

I found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mediabistro, which may need some attention. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've closed it as a malformed nomination. — xaosflux Talk 03:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Malformed nomination aside, shouldn't the userpage be deleted? It's obviously a re-posting of an article that appears to have been deleted. I can't find the original AFD, however I notice that there is a Talk:Media Bistro that still exists, which makes me think that the original article was removed some time ago. In either case, what of user pages that try to appear to be artlces (especially when the user ID is the same as the subject)? / Blaxthos 12:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Update: there was a Talk:Media Bistro when I made the post. I guess it got zapped sometime after. / Blaxthos 08:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DELT compatibility

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)

  • Sounds like a good idea to me. There is too much wasted activity right now of people turning off the transclusions and moving the links to the bottom of the page at arbitrary intervals. -- After Midnight 0001 12:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ugg, no. There is not enough activity to warrant having to manage the /log pages as well. Do to the nature of these debates, it would need to be more in line with the AFD system then the TFD system of transclusions within logs, and may lead to debates getting missed by those interested. WP:DELT is also already getting way to large, with the current page loading about 800kb of text — xaosflux Talk 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Seriously? I will confess that I don't know how hard all of the AFD style transclusions would be, but I think that it is easy to manage the log pages at CFD, no fuss, no muss. I would be thrilled to not see everyone moving the MFD debates all over the place. It seems that they are archived too aggressively. -- After Midnight 0001 02:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Seriously! The individula debates at CFD don't normally get very long, but we've had MFD's that are pages and pages of text. The volume at CFD is also greater, and CFD regulars have to go page by page to read the debates, with the smaller volume having all debates in one place works well. Now as for the the archiving / filing frequency, this is certainly the place to disucuss that, any suggestions as to page retention? — xaosflux Talk 17:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I guess that I would like to see the discussions stay in the order that they are entered and not get archived before I have a chance to see them. I think I would propose the following. 1) when a discussion is closed change it from a transclusion to a wikilink and summarize it as now, but leave it inline instead of moving it to the bottom of the page. 2) leave everything on the page until that day is 8 days old, and then move the entire day to the archive at once. -- After Midnight 0001 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Leaving them on the page is working OK, but inlining them is making them appear to be parts of the arguments aroudn them (and no I don't think DRV-style pastel boxes are the fix!) I've begun moving them to the bottom of the page again, but going slower on the off-page archiving. — xaosflux Talk 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Portals

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)

This does seem to be the place; portals get nominated here often. As for guidelines, I'm not sure actually. — The Storm Surfer 12:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting archives

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)

Makes sense as you explain it, but in looking at those archives, it appears that a good archive system is in place, and that they are fairly well organized and indexed (most have >10 headings in them as well). As these are cut-and-paste archives there would be no GFDL issues with combining them and deleting them, but in this case it doesn't look like it's the best course of action. Before bringing this to MFD, you should bring it to, of all palces, the Hero's Talk page, and see what the other editors think. If there is consensus there you really don't need further community consensus, so just merge away then list all the pages here at once. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's done. Archives from #3 to #9 (inclusively) have been copied in archive #2, and archives from #11 to #13 (inclusively) have been copied in archive #10. Please delete these archives (#3-#9, #11-#13). Once done, I will move archive #10 as #3, and #14 as #4. I will also fix the current links in the archive box and in "What links here". Thanks! -- Lyverbe 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
hrm... it's been more than a week. Could somebody please delete the subpages? thanks. -- Lyverbe 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm asked to "merge away and list all the pages here at once". Done. It's been 2 weeks now. Could someone please delete the subpages so I can continue with this project... -- Lyverbe 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to be certain, blank the archives you want deleting and I will delete them. Let me know here when you have done so. Is it still #3-#9 and #11-#13 you want deleting? -- Bduke 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. Yes, still from #3 to #9, and from #11 to #13 (inclusively). Thanks -- Lyverbe 11:17, 31 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)

Be civil. Wikipedia is volunteer work. Perhaps those people had a real life issue to deal with? Or they forgot, or they didn't have access to a computer. Things can't always be done right at the moment you want to. RobJ1981 11:47, 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)

Someone promising to do something, doesn't always mean it will be done (or done the right way that you want). Complaining here about it, doesn't help matters. Wikipedia is about editing: not attacking people for not doing the job correctly. RobJ1981 12:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "attacking" people for not doing the job correctly, I'm "attacking" for not doing the job, period. Complaining about it does help because it tells people the mess it can do when they say "I'll do it!" and then disappear when it comes time to do it. You cannot give the task "Blank the archives you want deleting and I will delete them" if you won't delete them. Not only that was quite some work, but I had to undo it all and that's why I started this whole thing with "I'd like to know before starting the procedures" so I can avoid unnecessary work. I tried to go by the book, but this has only caused a month of useless delay and someone else did the archive all wrong. I won't rely on the protocols anymore and handle this myself instead. I've learned from this mistake and hope other people have too. -- Lyverbe 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the talk page for how MFD functions, when I said "Before bringing this to MFD, you should bring it to, of all palces, the Hero's Talk page, and see what the other editors think. If there is consensus there you really don't need further community consensus, so just merge away then list all the pages here at once." I was implying that after you are done with your cleanups, then list a proper MFD on the main page. — xaosflux Talk 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notification for user space

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)

Agreed. This makes sense. If there is any urgency, then there is always speedy, but it is rare that waiting a few days to discuss with the user first, will make matters worse. Carcharoth 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is really good practice for almost all deletion discussions, bring it up on the associated talk page first. — xaosflux Talk 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a great idea! I think we will lose less possible constructive users by doing this.-- SJP 05:27, 15 September 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)

Wikipedia:Editors matter

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)

Further content merged from /Front matter

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)

Deletion of Projects - centralized discussion

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)

Not sure speedy deletion is a good practice with WikiProjects

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)

G7 says 'No one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and that editor requests its deletion or has blanked the page. For Wikiprojects, sign-ups should be considered substantial edits. If no one but the author has been interested in the project, and he isn't any more, what's the harm?
If some admins have been trigger-happy in enforcing G7, the remedy is WP:DRV; no change of language here will stop them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
To put this in context, there was a lot of discussion of when it is appropriate to delete projects going on a couple months ago, there was a centralized discussion, etc. There was some disagreement as to the criteria. I was actively participating and lots of MfD's for Projects were being nominated. Then along came a couple that were gone and archived so fast most people wouldn't have even seen them go with a very cursory "Speedy Delete - Creator Request" closing comment. Since no where in the discussion or the outcome was it stated that the creator was the only editor, one was left to assume that the standard was appropriately applied. Additionally, as I mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects#Not_sure_about_some_speedy_deletion, applying CSD#G7 blindly can result in effectively allowing revocation. The suggestion was really just that when the discussion itself doesn't make it clear the admin deleting should ensure that the closing comments clearly state at the very least that the creator was the only editor and maybe that there was no unique content. Even better, mark the discussion as closed as Speedy Delete but leave the project up a day or two longer, once the nomination has been sent here we all have a right to consider the appropriateness of the resolution.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I can see instances in which it might be reasonably possible for a creator to request that a project be speedy deleted. If, for instance, someone mistakenly creates a project without knowing that there already is a project of a different name which deals with the same subject after creating the project page. In cases like that, I can't see any valid reason for opposing speedy deletion. In cases like this, I think that we just have to assume good faith on the part of the deleting admin, or, if one is not an admin oneself, maybe asking an admin to review it. But I do think that if any project is created either by mistake, or alternately by misspelling or misnaming, there wouldn't be any good reason to oppose such deletions. John Carter 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I am not suggesting that speedy deletion is never appropriate (the section heading overstates things), as I've stated at the centralized discussion, creator requests normally are. It's not an issue of good faith, many things are speedied without ever coming here, but once they're here, I think we deserve some very limited visibility, without having to ask another admin to review it. People make mistakes (and reasonable people disagree) and unless you know more details you don't know when to ask questions - you're forced to say "ok must be fine." -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, one could try to get an admin to review it. However, it seems to me that you're saying above assuming good faith, or as you phrase it, "say[ing] "ok must be fine" is at best a less desirable option. Can't the same thing be said about any content? I haven't seen anything yet which specifically indicates to me that there is either a greater chance of such happening with projects, or that there is a real chance of substantive loss to the project by allowing such deletions to continue as they have before. I personally would like to have some good reason to believe that the procedures should be changed rather than just a theoretical "it might happen...". John Carter 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
N.B. - When I go to CSD#G7 it reads:Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. - not sure where the version listed above comes from.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Date

I'm wondering why the MFD date header is linked. - jc37 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To allow the date to be displayed as specified in logged-in editors' preferences, perhaps? Lurker ( said · done) 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Either I didn't understand your response, or you didn't understand my question : )
Could you please clarify? - jc37 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The date header is wikilinked because editors can choose in their preferences which format they wish to use to display dates. As far as I know, this only works for dates which are linked, but I could be wrong. Lurker ( said · done) 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds... unlikely? I'd like to find out, though. Any suggestions as to where to look? - jc37 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears to actually function thus. I tested a date formatted as a link versus the same date without a link and it does as Lurker suggests. There is an archived discussion here which touches on this subject but doesn't address your question directly. Interestingly, TfD doesn't wikilink the dates, CfD and AfD have subpages by date due to the volume, so the date actually links to something meaninful. The archived discussion referenced seems to suggest that way back there was an attempt to keep all of the XfD's the same.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That was interesting, thank you.
My concern is that just as we're not to link headers in articles per the MoS, I don't know that it's a good idea to do so here, either. Also, the links to the dates are essentially useless to the discussions, since they link to real-world historical information.
If the above linked discussion is the only reason, I'd like to see the header links removed as the "convention". - jc37 21:54, 14 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)

Why bother? This is not is not an article, so MOS has no real relevance here. I find it quite practical that I see the date according to my preference. See here for the explanation on auto formatting dates. Garion96 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the reasons for the MOS are relevant here though, the linked dates are sort of odd, TfD's version looks better I think (though day/month/year would probably be better than month/day). More importantly, I think there is something to be said for consistency among XfD's, there are currently at least three ways of doing this, volume here varies but we could also consider dated subpages.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. According to that also, we shouldn't be linking in the section headers.
Well, as I recall, one concern is that linking in headers doesn't show up for every user (for technical reasons), and there may be issues with readability. There are also reasons of access for those who may be visually impaired. I think that those MoS reasons apply just as much to XfD discussions.
Also (to Doug), I believe that there are some MfD nomination formatting templates that may need to be changed as well. - jc37 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Preference doesn't show unless you are logged in, editors not logged in simply see the dates as they are written. I don't see any readability or issues for the visually impaired there. That it looks nicer is a good argument in an article (ergo the MOS), but on this page? It would be handy if developers some day would make auto formatting without the links though. These are pointles in almost every article with a full date wikilinked. Garion96 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the impairment issue is with respect to having linked headings period, anywhere. The point is that if you make linked headings they won't work correctly for the visually impaired using some sort of reader. Not sure about the technicals on that though, I'm just interpreting. Maybe someone else could comment on how this works technically. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)As a regular MFD closer/filer, not linking the dates will have no affect on processing, so long as they are still there. — xaosflux Talk 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Then, I think we should proceed with a change to follow the rationale behind the MOS and to be consistent with the other XfDs that don't use separate pages for each day, by not linking the dates. (It could be in part an attempt to follow the style of those XfDs that do have a separate page that caused this in the first place, but on those pages the dates actually link to something meaningful).-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new prerequisite

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:

  • User pages and user subpages should not be nominated for deletion without the user in question first being given the option of self-correcting. Nomination may only be made if the user in question either fails to respond within a reasonable time or rejects the proposal.

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)

  • I see this as a Best Practice together with notifying the creator and/or participants and/or parent projects with respect to projects and portals nominated for deletion. Not sure if this should be a prerequisite or not, I don't usually get very involved in the user page discussions, sticking mainly to projects and portals, so I'm not really sure of the implications.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is discussed above as well. May be useful to combine the discussions.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 23:00, 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 went ahead and created such a template: {{ Uw-userpage}}. Please feel free to modify it as anyone sees fit.-- 12 Noon 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm sure it can be improved, everything can, but it looks good enough for a starter. Why don't we just go ahead and implement it.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 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)

These seem like reasonable ideas, though I'm warry of process creep for editors not so familiar with this rule. If they go through the trouble to tag a page, then list it here, but don't remember to notify the user, then what? Delete the MFD and start anew, strike !votes, etc. I fully support notifying the user as a GoodThing, and think we should start with a "you should" type of wording instead of a "you must". — xaosflux Talk 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, again I see this as Best Practices. Certainly it shouldn't void an MfD. I currently try to ensure that some interest party has been notified whenever I come upon an MfD (but again, I generally stick to projects and portals), that usually occurs at least a little while into the process, since I have never nominated, but it at least ensures there is some notice, even if it's at the 11th hour. I would also encourage you (12 noon) to review the discussions, particularly the opening material, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Inactive projects, which is a centralized discussion that touched upon this. As well as the other discussions referenced there. That discussion has started to go stale, but could use reviving. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should have, at the top of the MfD page, a section of best practices for each type of miscellany: userpages & subpages, "Wikipedia" name space, WikiProjects (which I think should be exempt from deletion, except in cases of vandalism etc., and should instead only have the option of making historical), Portals, etc. Currently, MfD lumps everything together and treats a userpage the same as a WikiProject, which should not be the case. Hmm, maybe a minor re-write of the "Prerequisites" section is in order (and maybe that section should be renamed "Best Practices"?).-- 12 Noon 15:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think my own nominations of user subpages page of other users for deletion were when that page contained content which was removed from an article on the basis of the text not being acceptable by wikipedia guidelines. I can think of instances when such could happen again, and I'm not sure if it's a good idea to create an additional rule for such material, which clearly qualifies for deletion according to other rules. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing the Template:mfd be altered to include a line which can be dropped off on the page creator's talk page to notify them of the discussion. John Carter ( talk) 15:50, 27 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)

Actually, I think {{ uw-userpage}} could easily be adjusted to include that. I was thinking of putting in some of the main points of WP:UP and WP:NOT (e.g. not a webhost, not myspace, no libel, no non-free content, no depository of old or deleted pages), but I thought it would be a bit too bold to unilaterally decide what the most important points are. In the meantime, the second variable field of the template allows for a personalized message at the end--the warning editor could note any specific problems they see with the userpage in question. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I updated the MfD Introduction regarding the userpage info, and also tweaked the info about WikiProjects. Feel free to improve the language or revert. Regards. -- 12 Noon 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Great! I was actually wondering today if it wasn't time to add something more solid into the opening about discussing problems with users before taking it to MfD. By the way, I've tweaked the intro a little bit more to include the relevant wikilinks, etc. -- jonny- m t 07:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

When userpage used as a forum

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)

Nominated by creator

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)

Just put {{ db-author}} on them and they will soon disappear. — xaosflux Talk 04:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If for some reason that request is rejected (which is highly unlikely, though it may take a day), you would nominated them here through the regular process. - Koweja ( talk) 04:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Possible reasons for rejecting a request like that is if you have a subpage that is being transcluded elsewhere, or has been significantly edited by others. — xaosflux Talk 04:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"skip to active discussion" banner edit

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)

Reverting of Intro?

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)

Never mind, Xoloz stated on my talk page it was a problem with the TOC showing correctly. Strange.-- 12 Noon  2¢ 16:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_2&oldid=1148110243"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Users commeting on own MfDs

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)

I would rather have them participate in the discussion with well-reasoned and insightful comments than wage a revert war or something else WP:POINTish. I see no good reason to prevent them from participating. Slambo (Speak) 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As long as the discussions are polite and fact-based, there is no reason to prohibit the user from participating and can be very good reasons to encourage them to participate. Incivility is a separate problem. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's no different than if an article writer comments on his own article at AFD. YechielMan 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The user should identify his involvement, should explain the reasons for creating/editing/deleting as he did, and (like anyone else) should be civil and stick to the facts. Often this person can save the rest of us a lot of research and speculation and assumption of bad faith. Barno 13:01, 13 April 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)

Commenting is fine; being disruptive isn't. I'd support a user commenting, as they may have things to bring to the attention of others. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MfDs of policy/guideline/essay and organisation pages

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)

Discussion

  • My arguments are given above. 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 don't think we need more infrastructure to implement this. Is there any reason that adding an explanatory section to MFD, noting that "longstanding essays, guidelines, policies, and projects are typically marked historical and deprecated in lieu of actually literal deletion" (or something like that...) wouldn't be enough? Serpent's Choice 12:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect from the above discussion from 2005, that such text did at one time exist and got lost for whatever reason. Carcharoth 12:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the relevant bit of text was there all the time: "Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors." - I'll highlight it so that people don't miss it. Carcharoth 12:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A good example of how to organise historical stuff and delete unecessary stuff is at User:Kenb215/Projects/WP:COMMsubCle - a page documenting the clean-up of the subpages of Wikipedia:Community Portal. Carcharoth 12:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The explanation has been there for awhile and it's also on WP:CSK. In general we don't delete proposals or old policy, but there have been a few notable exceptions. >Radiant< 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's strange. CSK says: "The page is a policy or guideline, or an active Wikipedia process. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy." - wasn't PAIN an active Wikipedia process? I suppose Esperanza and WikiProjects can be considered active processes as well, though 'organisation' would be a better word. Bureaucracy/community could describe all such pages. I am beginning to agree that MfD is not the best location for such discussions, because policy, guidelines, essays, community pages, process pages, organisation pages, should all be archived when shut down (or declared outdated or wrong), not deleted. Essays, as I said before, are generally userfied if not considered good enough for Wikipedia namespace. Carcharoth 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The answer to that is that WP:NOT a bureaucracy. The clause exists to prevent people from making WP:POINTy nominations of policy or process that they do not like. The discussion of PAIN started on ANI, and had it stayed there it would also have shut the board down. >Radiant< 15:19, 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)

  • Note that these are two rare and extreme cases. I do not recall an earlier succesful deletion of policy or process. Hence I doubt we need a new process or rule to deal with this. >Radiant< 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Some time ago someone tried nominating Wikipedia:Deletion Review for deletion, a nomination which actually garnered support from arbitrators, both former and current. I'm not sure, but I think that was a motivation for adding the "active policy/process clause to the speedy keep guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 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)

Wasn't CfD renamed this way recently? Carcharoth 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, the only problem with the name is that, in a way, it means "discuss anything you want". — Centrx→ talk • 07:22, 24 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)

I think you are mixing issues here. The general argument made for deleting a failed policy page is "it's useless but if properly tagged as {{ rejected}}, not actively harmful". The general argument against the long-term abuse pages has been "it's actively harmful" for any of several reasons. Failed or obsoleted policy proposals generally are kept so we can learn from them and not have the same good-faith discussions over and over. We have traditionally held them to a fairly low standard in deletion discussions (first VfD, now MFD). The Long-term Abuse pages, forgotten WikiProject pages and the others in your example list were not policy proposals and were evaluated against a different standard. I think that's appropriate. Simply being in the Wikipedia-space does not automatically trigger the tradition that we generally follow for good-faith policy proposals. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with most of the DRVs up there. I'm not suggesting that the deleted ones should have been kept, I'm just giving some examples for discussion. I'm rather pleased to find that the mass deletion of relevant (even if out-of-date) Wikipedia: pages hasn't happened according to the people posting here. I just got the impression in the WP:ESP and WP:PAIN MfDs that some people were rabidly arguing for deletion because they wanted to destroy with fire and wipe out all reference to the pages from history. I generally think that Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system would work quite well, but that never really seemed to take off. Carcharoth 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Update

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)

CV

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)

If you want it deleted, you can list it here. — xaosflux Talk 13:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:South Park

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)

Just make a seperate disucssion page, MFD/Page 2 for the translusion. — xaosflux Talk 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd nomination

What is the proper method for listing an MFD item that has been listed before? Regards, Navou banter 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just make a new Mfd page WP:MFD/Page '''2''']. — xaosflux Talk 13:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

MFD template

This is the current {{ md}}/{{ mfd}} template:

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy .
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.

Maintenance use only: {{ subst:md1}} {{subst:md2|pg=Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 2|text=}} {{subst:md3|pg=Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 2}} log


but what do you think of my new version below:

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy .
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.

Maintenance use only: {{ subst:md1}} {{subst:md2|pg=Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 2|text=}} {{subst:md3|pg=Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 2}} log

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)

If you're going to change it, I'd add something like "If you are nominating a user page or subpage, as a courtesy you are requested to notify the user of this" or something. 68.39.174.238 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like the green better; the new color makes this too close to the speedy deletion tags, and the two are wide apart in function. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I do like the green better, as a personal preference. Gracenotes T § 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the green better above, but there may be other colors I like better that have yet to be shown! — xaosflux Talk 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Groupe 71

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)

Done. — xaosflux Talk 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion

I see three active disscussions yet there are 51 pages in this category. Any clues?-- BirgitteSB 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. An example, User:Corbinb8 is linked to (through a userbox) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman. Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That might be it.-- BirgitteSB 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There were actually some old malformed MFD's in there, some kept pages that never got unlisted, and some pages that should have been deleted that never were. I've cleaned out this entire categor now, and it reflects only the current mfds or things related to mfd.

— xaosflux Talk 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

qtangel7772

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

TOC?

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)

Um... I see the table of contents, so I don't know. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a TOCRight translcuded in one of the discussions, since removed. — xaosflux Talk 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion

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)

Um, sorry so long to reply, but not a chance, if you really want to nominate them for speedy you should see WP:CSD not here. — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this has been discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (closed by you, actually!) and then again at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (2nd nomination). — The Storm Surfer 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha thaught it sounded familiar! — xaosflux Talk 03:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous tip

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)

two others: trosk and fasten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.98.212.51 ( talk) 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Marking closed debates

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)

  • Support - I like the list instead of the transclusion, but it would also be nice to have that summary. Good call. -- After Midnight 0001 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tablespace

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)

Aaaaand it's gone again. Nevermind (for now). -- nae' blis 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It comes and goes :) We'll need more info about how it will be used to make that call, but that sounds about right. — xaosflux Talk 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

May 11-14 nominations

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)

Re:Copycat

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)

Usually not. Since this is an unusual situation (I have never seen it), you can post on a noticeboard or deletion discussion as individual cases arise. Shalom Hello 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediabistro

I found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mediabistro, which may need some attention. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've closed it as a malformed nomination. — xaosflux Talk 03:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Malformed nomination aside, shouldn't the userpage be deleted? It's obviously a re-posting of an article that appears to have been deleted. I can't find the original AFD, however I notice that there is a Talk:Media Bistro that still exists, which makes me think that the original article was removed some time ago. In either case, what of user pages that try to appear to be artlces (especially when the user ID is the same as the subject)? / Blaxthos 12:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Update: there was a Talk:Media Bistro when I made the post. I guess it got zapped sometime after. / Blaxthos 08:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DELT compatibility

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)

  • Sounds like a good idea to me. There is too much wasted activity right now of people turning off the transclusions and moving the links to the bottom of the page at arbitrary intervals. -- After Midnight 0001 12:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Ugg, no. There is not enough activity to warrant having to manage the /log pages as well. Do to the nature of these debates, it would need to be more in line with the AFD system then the TFD system of transclusions within logs, and may lead to debates getting missed by those interested. WP:DELT is also already getting way to large, with the current page loading about 800kb of text — xaosflux Talk 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Seriously? I will confess that I don't know how hard all of the AFD style transclusions would be, but I think that it is easy to manage the log pages at CFD, no fuss, no muss. I would be thrilled to not see everyone moving the MFD debates all over the place. It seems that they are archived too aggressively. -- After Midnight 0001 02:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Seriously! The individula debates at CFD don't normally get very long, but we've had MFD's that are pages and pages of text. The volume at CFD is also greater, and CFD regulars have to go page by page to read the debates, with the smaller volume having all debates in one place works well. Now as for the the archiving / filing frequency, this is certainly the place to disucuss that, any suggestions as to page retention? — xaosflux Talk 17:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I guess that I would like to see the discussions stay in the order that they are entered and not get archived before I have a chance to see them. I think I would propose the following. 1) when a discussion is closed change it from a transclusion to a wikilink and summarize it as now, but leave it inline instead of moving it to the bottom of the page. 2) leave everything on the page until that day is 8 days old, and then move the entire day to the archive at once. -- After Midnight 0001 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Leaving them on the page is working OK, but inlining them is making them appear to be parts of the arguments aroudn them (and no I don't think DRV-style pastel boxes are the fix!) I've begun moving them to the bottom of the page again, but going slower on the off-page archiving. — xaosflux Talk 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Portals

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)

This does seem to be the place; portals get nominated here often. As for guidelines, I'm not sure actually. — The Storm Surfer 12:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting archives

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)

Makes sense as you explain it, but in looking at those archives, it appears that a good archive system is in place, and that they are fairly well organized and indexed (most have >10 headings in them as well). As these are cut-and-paste archives there would be no GFDL issues with combining them and deleting them, but in this case it doesn't look like it's the best course of action. Before bringing this to MFD, you should bring it to, of all palces, the Hero's Talk page, and see what the other editors think. If there is consensus there you really don't need further community consensus, so just merge away then list all the pages here at once. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's done. Archives from #3 to #9 (inclusively) have been copied in archive #2, and archives from #11 to #13 (inclusively) have been copied in archive #10. Please delete these archives (#3-#9, #11-#13). Once done, I will move archive #10 as #3, and #14 as #4. I will also fix the current links in the archive box and in "What links here". Thanks! -- Lyverbe 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
hrm... it's been more than a week. Could somebody please delete the subpages? thanks. -- Lyverbe 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm asked to "merge away and list all the pages here at once". Done. It's been 2 weeks now. Could someone please delete the subpages so I can continue with this project... -- Lyverbe 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to be certain, blank the archives you want deleting and I will delete them. Let me know here when you have done so. Is it still #3-#9 and #11-#13 you want deleting? -- Bduke 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. Yes, still from #3 to #9, and from #11 to #13 (inclusively). Thanks -- Lyverbe 11:17, 31 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)

Be civil. Wikipedia is volunteer work. Perhaps those people had a real life issue to deal with? Or they forgot, or they didn't have access to a computer. Things can't always be done right at the moment you want to. RobJ1981 11:47, 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)

Someone promising to do something, doesn't always mean it will be done (or done the right way that you want). Complaining here about it, doesn't help matters. Wikipedia is about editing: not attacking people for not doing the job correctly. RobJ1981 12:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "attacking" people for not doing the job correctly, I'm "attacking" for not doing the job, period. Complaining about it does help because it tells people the mess it can do when they say "I'll do it!" and then disappear when it comes time to do it. You cannot give the task "Blank the archives you want deleting and I will delete them" if you won't delete them. Not only that was quite some work, but I had to undo it all and that's why I started this whole thing with "I'd like to know before starting the procedures" so I can avoid unnecessary work. I tried to go by the book, but this has only caused a month of useless delay and someone else did the archive all wrong. I won't rely on the protocols anymore and handle this myself instead. I've learned from this mistake and hope other people have too. -- Lyverbe 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the talk page for how MFD functions, when I said "Before bringing this to MFD, you should bring it to, of all palces, the Hero's Talk page, and see what the other editors think. If there is consensus there you really don't need further community consensus, so just merge away then list all the pages here at once." I was implying that after you are done with your cleanups, then list a proper MFD on the main page. — xaosflux Talk 03:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notification for user space

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)

Agreed. This makes sense. If there is any urgency, then there is always speedy, but it is rare that waiting a few days to discuss with the user first, will make matters worse. Carcharoth 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is really good practice for almost all deletion discussions, bring it up on the associated talk page first. — xaosflux Talk 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a great idea! I think we will lose less possible constructive users by doing this.-- SJP 05:27, 15 September 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)

Wikipedia:Editors matter

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)

Further content merged from /Front matter

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)

Deletion of Projects - centralized discussion

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)

Not sure speedy deletion is a good practice with WikiProjects

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)

G7 says 'No one other than its original author has made substantial edits to this page, and that editor requests its deletion or has blanked the page. For Wikiprojects, sign-ups should be considered substantial edits. If no one but the author has been interested in the project, and he isn't any more, what's the harm?
If some admins have been trigger-happy in enforcing G7, the remedy is WP:DRV; no change of language here will stop them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
To put this in context, there was a lot of discussion of when it is appropriate to delete projects going on a couple months ago, there was a centralized discussion, etc. There was some disagreement as to the criteria. I was actively participating and lots of MfD's for Projects were being nominated. Then along came a couple that were gone and archived so fast most people wouldn't have even seen them go with a very cursory "Speedy Delete - Creator Request" closing comment. Since no where in the discussion or the outcome was it stated that the creator was the only editor, one was left to assume that the standard was appropriately applied. Additionally, as I mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects#Not_sure_about_some_speedy_deletion, applying CSD#G7 blindly can result in effectively allowing revocation. The suggestion was really just that when the discussion itself doesn't make it clear the admin deleting should ensure that the closing comments clearly state at the very least that the creator was the only editor and maybe that there was no unique content. Even better, mark the discussion as closed as Speedy Delete but leave the project up a day or two longer, once the nomination has been sent here we all have a right to consider the appropriateness of the resolution.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I can see instances in which it might be reasonably possible for a creator to request that a project be speedy deleted. If, for instance, someone mistakenly creates a project without knowing that there already is a project of a different name which deals with the same subject after creating the project page. In cases like that, I can't see any valid reason for opposing speedy deletion. In cases like this, I think that we just have to assume good faith on the part of the deleting admin, or, if one is not an admin oneself, maybe asking an admin to review it. But I do think that if any project is created either by mistake, or alternately by misspelling or misnaming, there wouldn't be any good reason to oppose such deletions. John Carter 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I am not suggesting that speedy deletion is never appropriate (the section heading overstates things), as I've stated at the centralized discussion, creator requests normally are. It's not an issue of good faith, many things are speedied without ever coming here, but once they're here, I think we deserve some very limited visibility, without having to ask another admin to review it. People make mistakes (and reasonable people disagree) and unless you know more details you don't know when to ask questions - you're forced to say "ok must be fine." -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, one could try to get an admin to review it. However, it seems to me that you're saying above assuming good faith, or as you phrase it, "say[ing] "ok must be fine" is at best a less desirable option. Can't the same thing be said about any content? I haven't seen anything yet which specifically indicates to me that there is either a greater chance of such happening with projects, or that there is a real chance of substantive loss to the project by allowing such deletions to continue as they have before. I personally would like to have some good reason to believe that the procedures should be changed rather than just a theoretical "it might happen...". John Carter 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
N.B. - When I go to CSD#G7 it reads:Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. - not sure where the version listed above comes from.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Date

I'm wondering why the MFD date header is linked. - jc37 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To allow the date to be displayed as specified in logged-in editors' preferences, perhaps? Lurker ( said · done) 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Either I didn't understand your response, or you didn't understand my question : )
Could you please clarify? - jc37 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The date header is wikilinked because editors can choose in their preferences which format they wish to use to display dates. As far as I know, this only works for dates which are linked, but I could be wrong. Lurker ( said · done) 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds... unlikely? I'd like to find out, though. Any suggestions as to where to look? - jc37 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears to actually function thus. I tested a date formatted as a link versus the same date without a link and it does as Lurker suggests. There is an archived discussion here which touches on this subject but doesn't address your question directly. Interestingly, TfD doesn't wikilink the dates, CfD and AfD have subpages by date due to the volume, so the date actually links to something meaninful. The archived discussion referenced seems to suggest that way back there was an attempt to keep all of the XfD's the same.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That was interesting, thank you.
My concern is that just as we're not to link headers in articles per the MoS, I don't know that it's a good idea to do so here, either. Also, the links to the dates are essentially useless to the discussions, since they link to real-world historical information.
If the above linked discussion is the only reason, I'd like to see the header links removed as the "convention". - jc37 21:54, 14 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)

Why bother? This is not is not an article, so MOS has no real relevance here. I find it quite practical that I see the date according to my preference. See here for the explanation on auto formatting dates. Garion96 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the reasons for the MOS are relevant here though, the linked dates are sort of odd, TfD's version looks better I think (though day/month/year would probably be better than month/day). More importantly, I think there is something to be said for consistency among XfD's, there are currently at least three ways of doing this, volume here varies but we could also consider dated subpages.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. According to that also, we shouldn't be linking in the section headers.
Well, as I recall, one concern is that linking in headers doesn't show up for every user (for technical reasons), and there may be issues with readability. There are also reasons of access for those who may be visually impaired. I think that those MoS reasons apply just as much to XfD discussions.
Also (to Doug), I believe that there are some MfD nomination formatting templates that may need to be changed as well. - jc37 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Preference doesn't show unless you are logged in, editors not logged in simply see the dates as they are written. I don't see any readability or issues for the visually impaired there. That it looks nicer is a good argument in an article (ergo the MOS), but on this page? It would be handy if developers some day would make auto formatting without the links though. These are pointles in almost every article with a full date wikilinked. Garion96 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the impairment issue is with respect to having linked headings period, anywhere. The point is that if you make linked headings they won't work correctly for the visually impaired using some sort of reader. Not sure about the technicals on that though, I'm just interpreting. Maybe someone else could comment on how this works technically. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)As a regular MFD closer/filer, not linking the dates will have no affect on processing, so long as they are still there. — xaosflux Talk 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Then, I think we should proceed with a change to follow the rationale behind the MOS and to be consistent with the other XfDs that don't use separate pages for each day, by not linking the dates. (It could be in part an attempt to follow the style of those XfDs that do have a separate page that caused this in the first place, but on those pages the dates actually link to something meaningful).-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new prerequisite

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:

  • User pages and user subpages should not be nominated for deletion without the user in question first being given the option of self-correcting. Nomination may only be made if the user in question either fails to respond within a reasonable time or rejects the proposal.

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)

  • I see this as a Best Practice together with notifying the creator and/or participants and/or parent projects with respect to projects and portals nominated for deletion. Not sure if this should be a prerequisite or not, I don't usually get very involved in the user page discussions, sticking mainly to projects and portals, so I'm not really sure of the implications.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is discussed above as well. May be useful to combine the discussions.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 23:00, 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 went ahead and created such a template: {{ Uw-userpage}}. Please feel free to modify it as anyone sees fit.-- 12 Noon 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm sure it can be improved, everything can, but it looks good enough for a starter. Why don't we just go ahead and implement it.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 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)

These seem like reasonable ideas, though I'm warry of process creep for editors not so familiar with this rule. If they go through the trouble to tag a page, then list it here, but don't remember to notify the user, then what? Delete the MFD and start anew, strike !votes, etc. I fully support notifying the user as a GoodThing, and think we should start with a "you should" type of wording instead of a "you must". — xaosflux Talk 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, again I see this as Best Practices. Certainly it shouldn't void an MfD. I currently try to ensure that some interest party has been notified whenever I come upon an MfD (but again, I generally stick to projects and portals), that usually occurs at least a little while into the process, since I have never nominated, but it at least ensures there is some notice, even if it's at the 11th hour. I would also encourage you (12 noon) to review the discussions, particularly the opening material, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Inactive projects, which is a centralized discussion that touched upon this. As well as the other discussions referenced there. That discussion has started to go stale, but could use reviving. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should have, at the top of the MfD page, a section of best practices for each type of miscellany: userpages & subpages, "Wikipedia" name space, WikiProjects (which I think should be exempt from deletion, except in cases of vandalism etc., and should instead only have the option of making historical), Portals, etc. Currently, MfD lumps everything together and treats a userpage the same as a WikiProject, which should not be the case. Hmm, maybe a minor re-write of the "Prerequisites" section is in order (and maybe that section should be renamed "Best Practices"?).-- 12 Noon 15:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think my own nominations of user subpages page of other users for deletion were when that page contained content which was removed from an article on the basis of the text not being acceptable by wikipedia guidelines. I can think of instances when such could happen again, and I'm not sure if it's a good idea to create an additional rule for such material, which clearly qualifies for deletion according to other rules. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing the Template:mfd be altered to include a line which can be dropped off on the page creator's talk page to notify them of the discussion. John Carter ( talk) 15:50, 27 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)

Actually, I think {{ uw-userpage}} could easily be adjusted to include that. I was thinking of putting in some of the main points of WP:UP and WP:NOT (e.g. not a webhost, not myspace, no libel, no non-free content, no depository of old or deleted pages), but I thought it would be a bit too bold to unilaterally decide what the most important points are. In the meantime, the second variable field of the template allows for a personalized message at the end--the warning editor could note any specific problems they see with the userpage in question. -- jonny-mt( t)( c) I'm on editor review! 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I updated the MfD Introduction regarding the userpage info, and also tweaked the info about WikiProjects. Feel free to improve the language or revert. Regards. -- 12 Noon 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Great! I was actually wondering today if it wasn't time to add something more solid into the opening about discussing problems with users before taking it to MfD. By the way, I've tweaked the intro a little bit more to include the relevant wikilinks, etc. -- jonny- m t 07:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

When userpage used as a forum

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)

Nominated by creator

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)

Just put {{ db-author}} on them and they will soon disappear. — xaosflux Talk 04:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If for some reason that request is rejected (which is highly unlikely, though it may take a day), you would nominated them here through the regular process. - Koweja ( talk) 04:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Possible reasons for rejecting a request like that is if you have a subpage that is being transcluded elsewhere, or has been significantly edited by others. — xaosflux Talk 04:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"skip to active discussion" banner edit

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)

Reverting of Intro?

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)

Never mind, Xoloz stated on my talk page it was a problem with the TOC showing correctly. Strange.-- 12 Noon  2¢ 16:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_2&oldid=1148110243"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE