This is an archive of past discussions for the period 1 January 2008–30 September 2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

How about adding a line to the intro regarding task forces? Such as: "Task forces, workgroups, and other project subpages, should normally be referred to the parent project rather than nominating for deletion. If material is so offensive or inappropriate that it cannot remain consider fixing it."-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 18:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that the whole intro is lacking and was contemplating re-doing it to include a comprehensive overview. See here for my proposal. I realize it may be overly inclusive, but I tried to make it very user-friendly. Please feel free to edit this page as you see fit, and understand it is not a final draft in any way. Regards. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I like it. I'm not sure what the technical issues might be though and it would no longer look like any other XfD, but then someone has to change or everything will remain stagnant. There is a reference at the end to "userfication... as mentioned above" but I don't see it mentioned above. Also, I think the first paragraph should emphasize the alternatives to deletion such as userfication, marking historical, etc. This may require changes to some of the XfD pages as well, which might get into actual policy.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "...as mentioned above" [1]. I think I was referring to userfing Essays, but it reads just fine without the reference. Actually, the XfDs do not look all that similar at the moment as I copied a few aspects from other XfDs. In any case, complete uniformity would not be entirely appropriate. But that can be addressed as we go, I guess. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to if a note about Portals were posted at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals#Portals_for_deletion_at_MfD, a good practice. Currently, I have to do that whenever I see one posted. If I miss one, it never makes the Project Portals list, which has some historical value to Project participants as well.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This step could be added to the closing process both on this page and on Wikipedia:Deletion process#Miscellany for Deletion page. This step could probably be added now, as in a fit of being bold. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 01:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

hmm, I hadn't thought about the closing process, interesting. I was thinking more of the nominating process though, getting nominators to post a notice there. Usually if a portal comes up for nomination it's in a pretty sorry state and not used much, no one is likely to see the nom unless they hang out here. By posting it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals#Portals_for_deletion_at_MfD, editors who have an interest in the workings of portals but don't necessarily hang out here everyday, may be brought in to the discussion. By the way, have you noticed the AFD notification templates include notification of any editor who has contributed substantially to the article. It's not a requirement, but seems to be a Best Practice there.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(I decided I was getting to far afield on all the changes and ought to start a new section)

The MFD Template link to the discussion seems to work but is redlinked. I've seen discussion of this on {{ AFD}}'s talk pages as a problem there too previously. Looking into this also got me to noticing that AFD has converted to the white banner with a red sidebar style of template (and also seems to have fixed the redlink issue). {{ rfd}} has as well. {{ ifd}} is a little different - I kind of like the more urgent look to theirs. But I think red borders are reserved for pretty serious templates. {{ cfd}}, {{ sfd}}, and {{ mfd}} are looking a little long in the tooth and only {{ mfd}} appears to be broken.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 04:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason the "this article's entry" is not redlinked on {{ AFD}} is because it transcludes the real template into it: {{ AfDM}}, which is redlinked. Since {{ MFD}} is the real template (and does not transclude {{ MFDM}}), it appears redlinked. BTW, the day before yesterday I had {{ MFD}} updated (via {{ editprotect}}) to include giving notice to the author of the page [2] with {{ MFDWarning}}. Regarding the banner and sidebar color, there was some discussion here about it, but it was decided against here. FYI. Regards. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 15:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hmm, doesn't really look like a lot of discussion. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes seem to indicate that there are problems seeing the tinting in some systems and that more importantly there are accessibility issues for people with vision problems. Regarding the redlink, then why isn't {{ cfd}} redlinked? I don't fully understand the code, so I can't tell for sure, but that one seems to contain most of the code for the "real" template right in the text of cfd.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Because CfD's are added directly to the daily log, which is hard-coded into the template; whereas MfD (and AfD) are added to their own individual subpage and then transcluded into the main MfD page. C'mon, now! -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. But that still doesn't look like a lot of discussion, I think there were, uh, two comments (re changing the the banner and sidebar color - at those links you provided). Doesn't sound very "decided" to me. Worth reopening that discussion?-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 02:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen several nominations of userboxes on here lately. Perhaps it's time we resurrect WP:TFDU? >Radiant< 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• (or whatever the "userboxes for deletion" process was called) >Radiant< 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Before we do WPfD?! <grin>

• Sounds like what we need first is to address the policy issues raised in recent discussions, don't we? I am assuming those are actually going on somewhere based on my last read, but maybe not, I really haven't tracked the whole userbox thing until these most recent nominations. These got too heated for me to have any interest in contributing. Besides one gigantic discussion, are they really a big enough deal to warrant their own XfD?-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider contributing in this RFC: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/Userbox content. - Mtmelendez ^{( Talk)} 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • For anyone else who might get lost, the real discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Userbox content, the associated talk page in the link above has very little there.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, there is a discussion at WP:TFD regarding clarifying their jurisdiction over templates and several userbox nominations have recently appeared there.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think we need to resolve - whether we change the format of the MFD page or not - whether all userboxes go here, including those in Templatespace. TFD says they do but only because I changed it (based on discussion at WT:TFD#Templates in project space which could be called inconclusive re userboxes). I tried to make MFD consistent but was reverted. TFD remains. The consensus at TFD as I understood it, was that namespaces should not be the determining factor, templates in Project space should belong to TFD, etc. Of course, that never got discussed here. Relevant policies don't say exactly where to take nominations in such detail, that I see ( WP:DELETE is too general, WP:GTD is almost entirely about AfD, and WP:DELPRO is all about the mechanics of closing - except for the non-admin closing part). And it doesn't make any sense to have userboxes go two different places based merely on where they reside (particularly since they can simply be moved) - particularly considering the RFC.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for continuously tinkering with the format or policies here, but I wanted to generate more discussion about completely overhauling the look and feel of this page to make it more user-friendly and make the steps for deletion more obvious, especially regarding what is and what is not appropriate to nominate. I would really appreciate feedback on this: Please feel free to edit this page as you see fit, and understand it is not a final draft in any way (as a matter of fact I still have "notes to self" on the proposal). See here for my proposal. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like it! Can I suggest that we might want to clarify that a nomination of a Talk namespace page outside of talk namespaces associated with basic namespaces we already handle, would be highly unusual and if the basic namespace page is being nominated the talk page should be nominated with it on whatever XfD the basic namespace belongs. E.g. although theoretically possible, a nomination of a Template_talk, Category_talk, or a page from the Talk associated with an article - where the basic namespace page is not being nominated anywhere, would be a oddity (two recent mainspace nominations were due to a misunderstanding of the purpose of some Talkspace subpages and were speedy kept). Most of the instances I can think of where it would be warranted would be WP:SPEEDY.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 19:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Hold on, are you suggesting that the discussions be sorted and put into those collapsing sections, or just that your page replaces the instructions on the top and the discussions remain as they are? - Koweja ( talk) 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting the latter; the proposal would overhaul the page located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter. There would be no change to the process. Sorry for not clarifying myself. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't find this RFC, where is it?-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I just screwed up the spacing on the template so the bot did not recognize it — I think/hope I fixed it. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• The font sizes in the collapsed boxes are excessively large. I don't see the need for the <big> tags. The box around "please familiarize yourself" is also not necessary. It doesn't work to draw peoples attention by making things big or boxed in, unless there is only one big or boxed thing on the page. As an aside, there is no reason a MediaWiki page would go to MfD, nor a Special page. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the text might be too small for easy readability, but I removed the <big> tags [3]. I took the white box from WP:DRV as it did catch my eye, so I would appreciate further input on that. Regarding the MediaWiki, that is currently listed, so it is not my place to remove it outright. I added the note about "specialpages" to prevent them from being listed and instead wanted to offer the proper forum to do so (which I am unsure of, anyway), but that can easily be left off if deemed inappropriate. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I guess I misunderstood, this is the RFC isn't it? OK, I was confused, I thought we were supposed to go somewhere else - duh! It still doesn't seem to be showing up in the list though. Anyway, I originally thought you were breaking the MFD page up into sections by type and making the sections linkable. I rarely participate in anything but Project and Portal space discussions, so I found that interesting. Obviously now I understand it's just a header. I still like it. One thing though, we've had this discussion at WP:CSD, you don't need to nominate a redirect for deletion when you move across namespace (or any other move), as you are the creator and only editor of the redirect (the page history goes with the move), so you can CSD:G7 it, otherwise you can G6 it. Though you should use {{ db-reason}} not {{ db-author}}, so you can explain the situation and also get the standardized notice to put on the user page of the creator of the original.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• As a new page intro, I like this a lot - but I wouldn't like to see this used for listing new nominations under each section, which some people might mistake it for. I suppose it would become self-evident once it was in use, though. Grutness... wha? 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Why do we link the date in the {{ oldmfd}} template?

2) When you close an MFD in a talk namespace the link won't work. E.g. I noticed that User:Hmwith closed a couple of MFDs on subpages of article talk pages: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Bob_Ezrin/Comments and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Anthony_Moore/Comments, but hadn't finished the closing by removing the MfD tags so I did it and left {{ oldmfd}} tags but they seem to be set up to link to an discussion page for the basic namespace page - these in fact have no basic namespace page, since they're subpages of talkspace pages, but even if they did, if the page being nominated is itself in talkspace the reference won't work.

Thoughts?-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes things a little confusing. Maybe there should be an {{ oldmfdtalk}} template, as well? нмŵוτн τ 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion links work now [4] [5]. Regards. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

--edit conflict

Sounds like a good idea. In the discussion above, I suggest that deleting talk pages alone in the mainspace is rare, and it is, but deleting talk pages alone in userspace, although uncommon, does happen. I noticed some other closing editors/admins just omit the {{ oldmfd}} tag on some pages, particularly if there is a speedy close/speedy keep - You didn't call these two closes speedy keeps though, so I think the tag should be there. They were nominated, they were discussed - even if they were based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the pages - and I'm not sure that it's a good practice to omit the tag in any case, even for erroneous noms. I also noticed that Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom (disambiguation) (now a redirect to another disambiguation page, so don't get lost), which I closed has the same problem, so it may be an issue in the mainspace as well. Though those should always be erroneous.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Aha! I see. Thanks User:12 Noon. You have to use the |votepage parameter. See WP:DELPRO#MFD, which is where all the closing instructions are. They could probably use some work.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 01:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was browsing the intertubes for some information on Martial arts. I generally consider Wikipedia a pretty good jumping off point for information, and visit the site a lot. I haven't really contributed much, I made an edit today, but am pretty familiar with Wikipedia's internal workings, which is why this page: [ [6]] concerned me. I see I have to have an account to get it taken off Wikipedia (or considered to be removed) but I don't want to create an account, so I was hoping someone with more experience on these matters could help out. The page in question is some kind of biography of a Wikipedia editor but it is clearly masquerading as an encyclopedia article and a blatant piece of self-promotion, as the entire user space of this editor seems to be, but I only care about this "article" because it could so easily be mistaken for genuine encyclopedia content when in reality it is just some person promoting themselves and using Wikipedia to do it. Thanks for taking the time to read and react. 24.14.119.135 ( talk) 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your interest, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to create an account since "Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users, meaning you will have greater privacy. (Your IP address is still saved and accessible to users with Checkuser permission, but it is rare for this to be used.)" See WP:WHY. But anyway, I'm not aware of any restrictions on nominating by IP's, except maybe that you can't create the subpages necessary to complete the nomination process. You certainly don't need an account to participate in any discussion of a deletion, though since there is no way to know if several IP's are the same person nor to tell how experienced the IP User is (and some people will assume that the lack of an account indicates lack of experience), your comments may not get the same weight they might have if you had an account and participated in discussions regularly. You should be aware however, that the page you mentioned is not an article, it is a user page and the requirements of user pages are much less restrictive. See Wikipedia:User page for a guideline to what is and what is not acceptable. At a glance, the page you have mentioned, User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon seems to be within the acceptable range of content. You could certainly post a message at User_talk:TonyTheTiger stating your concerns and suggesting the use of the template {{ userpage}} to clearly identify the purpose of the page - I note that this user has such a tag at the bottom of User:TonyTheTiger, if you want to see what I mean. Hope this helps.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. Creating an account would only suck me in further. :) I am afraid I haven't the time for it, mostly I wanted to see what someone with more experience in these matters thought. My only concern was that a Wikipedia-novice (which is just about everybody) wouldn't know the difference, I didn't even realize I was reading an editor bio until I reached the end of the page. It isn't that big of a concern that I would go butting into the editor's business, I just wasn't sure if this was acceptable, because it seems so deceptively written, as if to almost act like an encyclopedia article. I suppose I should just "assume good faith" as I so often read around here. Sorry to have troubled you. 24.14.119.135 ( talk) 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally, at WP:MFD, someone tries to delete a user page which contains minimal content and an external link. For example, suppose I had nothing on my user page but the following:

Somebody might try to have that deleted on the ground that 100% of it was unrelated to Wikipedia. However, that would be a misinterpretation of the user page policy, since the page would have only one sentence and a single link, which is far from "substantial" unrelated content.

I would like to add something like the following under "Prerequisites":

• User pages that contain small amounts of non-Wikipedia-related content and which are associated with active editors generally should not be submitted for deletion, even if the small amount of non-Wikipedia-content comprises the entire user page.

If anyone can think of a better phrasing, please let me know. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of "While the User Page guidelines prohibit 'substantial content on [a user page] that is unrelated to Wikipedia', it should be noted that 'substantial' is determined by volume, not percentage of a page. Therefore, a user page that consists of nothing more than a single link to a non-wikipedia related page is acceptable, even though the link accounts for 100% of the content on the page.". - Koweja ( talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to bring up this concern would be at Wikipedia talk:User page. MfD only references the policy; it would not be clarified here. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, before we go saying what we want to change or add we should be stating what policy and guidelines say:

WP:UP#NOT (a Guideline) says "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." It then goes on to give examples and uses terms like "excessive amounts of x". None of this implies a percentage. I don't think we need to add anything. More importantly it's advisory "Generally you should avoid . . . " I think it's more important to impress upon editors that they need to read WP:UP before they nominate someone's userpage.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 04:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex is up to 66K, should it be fully transcluded, or only just a link to the MfD discussion? MBisanz ^talk 05:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A link would probably be a good idea.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 00:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Anime and Manga Portal has recently had an overhaul to clean things up and stream line some stuff. In doing so, there are now 232 pages that need to be deleted for housekeeping purposes. Since there isn't any controversy, what would be the best way to go about doing the deletions? AnmaFinotera ( talk) 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• 232 pages in Portal space!? You're not talking about articles right? Is there any reason the old stuff might be worth keeping for historical purposes? Can you provide some links to specific pages as examples?-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not worth keeping as the stuff for keeping has already been transitioned to the new system. Previously, the portal had a new featured article/series for each week of each year. The full lists are at Portal:Anime and manga/Selected series, from which there were pages for each year. Portal:Anime and manga/Selected series/2006, for example, was the list of selected series for 2006. For each series selected, a separate page was made, such as Portal:Anime and manga/Selected series/Week 2 2006, which had the blurb to show on the portal. The same was done for biographies, except all those pages were Selected biography.

• It was a very unwieldy system that people got tired of updating, and that was including a lot of start class articles that really didn't need to be featured in the portal. So the new system uses just two pages -- Portal:Anime and Manga/Selected article and Portal:Anime and Manga/Selected biographies -- and only a small number of included pages for only our our FA and GA class articles on it. Then one of each is randomly pulled on load into the portal page. It requires much less maintenance while keeping the front page fresher. Also seems to be a system more commonly used in our related portals. The new system is working much better, but we still have the 232 pages made from the old system that need to be gotten rid of. I have a whole list saved, I'm just not sure what to do with it. :-P AnmaFinotera ( talk) 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just leave a list somewhere and a note on my talk page, and I'll delete them. This sort of thing is easier if you have at least one admin in your Manga group... which I would guess you do. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps it's best to make a user sub-page listing them all for admins to review and delete them. We could also just convert them all to redirects saving time and effort. - Mtmelendez ^{( Talk)} 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I know we have at least one, but I wasn't sure if it was something that needed to be discussed first. I've put the list up at User:AnmaFinotera/WIP4 AnmaFinotera ( talk) 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to double check that these are simply obsolete; they weren't used in the creation of the new pages. If that's right, and the project wants them deleted, deleting them isn't a problem as far as I can see. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I can say, though, that they weren't since I was the one who did the new pages. I went straight to our list of GA and FA articles for the new pages, because the old lists were almost all start class articles and not ones we wanted featured. :) AnmaFinotera ( talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait a few hours for more comments, but otherwise I'll delete the pages. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's just G6/common sense, etc. in the same line of reasoning as Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Template_documentation_pages; providing that a review by the deleting admin confirms the above. No need to discuss as there is nothing to talk about.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just checking to see if this can be done as there have been no objections for 6 days :) AnmaFinotera ( talk) 02:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• If this hasn't happened yet, you may want to contact User:CBM directly via that admin's talk page.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Several portals relating to musical acts are currently being considered for deletion in the same nomination. Unfortunately, I don't think it makes a great deal of sense to see them all nominated and considered in this way. I have stated as much there, and at least one other editor has agreed with me. Unfortunately, I have no clue of the procedures of closing such a possibly faulty group nomination. Anyone out there have any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added an Old Business marker, hope nobody minds.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't know if it helped or not, but an admin came in and cleaned out the backlog shortly after I placed the marker.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It probably did. Everybody can use a little reminder once in a while. John Carter ( talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if we added {{ ln}} to {{ mfd2}} so that the talk page and logs would show for pages nominated. This would help among other things with ease of tagging with {{ oldmfd}} when closing keeps. Only complication that I'm sure I can't handle is that the code would have to switch to {{ lnt}} for talk page nominations. TfD uses {{ lt}} and WP:AFD uses {{ la}}, I think and it seems quite helpful.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

According to policy, proposals that are "disruptive" can be deleted. It is worth asking, how do we make that determination? Is it based on some inherent aspect of the page? Or do we measure disruptiveness by people's reactions to it? That is, if people behavior disruptively in their support or opposition to a policy, is that prima facie evidence that the policy itself is disruptive? One might argue that this is a practically useful and easily-measurable criterion, and thus should be adopted. The pitfall would be if there were a proposal whose retention were desirable, but its proponents or opponents happened to be disruptive in their conduct in reference to that proposal.

Wordnet defines "disruptive" as "characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination." Is it accurate to say that a proposal itself, then, is disruptive; or would it be more accurate to simply say that someone's behavior in reference to that proposal was disruptive, without making a judgment on the page itself? 129.174.2.205 ( talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed entirely. It was a loophole. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/School related user templates, was closed by a non-admin. As such, all 700+ templates still have their deletion templates, and the edits made by the nominator falsely claiming all of those templates had been replaced by her creation. Can an admin go through through and fix these two issues? AnmaFinotera ( talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...did you also remove her marking them all as being replaced? AnmaFinotera ( talk) 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks AuburnPilot for cleaning this up. When I move the discussions to closed (I've sort of taken over that duty) I try to check for this, but set this one aside due to the scope.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Language like "not a good idea" or "Is Frowned Upon" is apparently too wishy-washy. People will just read the requirement, and then go ahead and just do it anyway " damnit!".

So to fix that, I'll just harden the language, damnit, because it really is important that we don't have discussions about closing discussions about closing discussions, etc... ad infinum.

And if it ever happens again, I'll just kick their ass :-P (obscure reference. ;-) ) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) urk, who deleted that reference? I'll request undeletion <sigh>

The example you linked is something which I think is good to be possible to propose for deletion. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 20:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting such pages leads to catch-22 situations, where you end up being unable to explain why such pages are not permitted. (after all, all the evidence was deleted :-P ). You need to mark such pages historical or rejected instead. Does that make sense? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the deletion discussion still remain? Maybe in some cases it's better to keep the page and tag it as rejected or historical. With the page you linked, if someone wants to propose it inactive but not deleted, how would they do that? Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious, but the talk page is probably the most ideal place for that. — Κaiba 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all this wishy-washy language just leaves room for a temporary majority to do as it pleases (after all, it's not prohibited; just "frowned upon") while bashing someone else over the head if he violates it in a way they don't like ("WTF? We told you this was frowned upon.") Better just to live under the rule of law than in this chaotic environment. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It could also be chaotic if anyone can create anything to Wikipedia namespace and it would become impossible to delete it. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is always the option to ignore all rules, no matter how "hardened" the language is. But there are advantages to hardened language. If the rule is clear, then it becomes equally clear that those who argue for ignoring it have to make a case as to how, exactly, that rule is getting in the way of improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The burden of proof should be on them, not on those who want to keep a page.

I don't mind if people fill up the Wikipedia namespace with as much stuff as they want – failed proposals, random thoughts, humor, community-building stuff, or whatever. It's not paper, and none of it is going to keep me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. But then again, here we're getting into fundamental differences of philosophy. It's inclusionism vs. deletionism, as applied to the Wikipedia namespace. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It would indeed be chaotic if nothing in the wikipedia namespace could be deleted. But that's not what either wording says. The problem is where people attempt to delete good faith policy proposals and similar items. Right now, that's a real problem. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? I understand your concern and agree that all of the ones discussed should be kept, but who cares if people attempt to delete good faith policy proposals, other than it wastes our time, none have been deleted that I'm aware of, and if they were that's what DRV is for.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 07:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh how I would just love to step back and enjoy my schadenfreude, next time things go south...

You're missing the entire catch-22 twistiness of what you're proposing, in all its evil beauty.

Here's just one of several examples:

For instance: what happens if there is a proposal and a poll, where there are 40 supporters to do some particular action.

Now, MFD deletes the proposal page, for reasons not related to the poll.

• Does the proposal still have consensus?
• May someone apply the policy, according to you?
• What happens when that person *does* apply the policy?
• If we list the proposal at DRV, will that help?
• What if we list the MFD page on MFD?

Have fun answering! -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC) all these things have actually happened in the past. ;-)

As far as I knew we were discussing proposed policies - by which I understood we were discussing rejected proposals, not policies that had consensus or were still being discussed. Can you provide the examples? I haven't been around anywhere near as long as you. You don't have to provide diffs, just specifics, so I know what the heck we're discussing.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The question of what would happen to an accepted proposal does seem kind of academic. Hardly anything proposed gets accepted around here, and in the few cases that it does, probably those supporters would rally to its defense. Nonetheless, the idea of WP:MFD getting deleted does sound appealing, although I'll leave that nomination for someone else to make. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 02:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not academic. I've had some interesting times. ;-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has been listed twice, see the top of this page, I believe all the XfDs have been listed once or twice and some more than that. ArbCom was listed earlier in the week. But nobody takes those nominations seriously.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While the arguments used in those MfD MfDs weren't the greatest in the world, if people can try to kill unwanted proposals and their related paraphernalia by MfD'ing them, I don't see why others can't try to kill MfD through MfD. It's only a WP:POINT nomination if you are, in fact, just trying to make a point without any serious intent to delete MfD. We could probably survive without any of the deletion forums. Larry E. Jordan ( talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)blocked sockpuppet of Obuibo Mbstpo

Regarding the question of whether to use the language "not allowed" or "is frowned upon", the latter version has been in place for some time. I have not seen any compelling need to change it. Can we please stop the edit-warring? -- El on ka 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to change it? What does "frowned upon" mean? Can you get blocked or reverted for something that's "frowned upon" or will people just make that expression that uses 42 muscles of their face? Larry E. Jordan ( talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)blocked sockpuppet of Obuibo Mbstpo

(dedent) There is compelling reason. The only grounds for deleting a proposal which is under discussion would be that it is disruptive. Under standard deliberative process, the motion would be Objection to Consideration of the Question and, we might note, that motion is out of order if made after debate has begun. The reason is that debating over whether or not to debate, when you are already debating, solves nothing and only adds more opportunity for disagreement. Hence an MfD for a proposal which is under discussion should be speedy closed. If the discussion is truly disruptive, it could be argued, it should be immediately deleted by administrative action, but this community does not do that. So MfD is utterly and totally inappropriate when discussion is underway. The proper place to discuss the proposal is on the proposal pages, not somewhere else. If there is a problem, it would properly be taken to AN/I, not to MfD. "I have not seen any compelling need" is not an argument at all about the text, it is merely a personal statement of incapacity and makes no argument for keeping the language which was there. Is the replacement language harmful? If not, then why is it being opposed? It is actually more accurate about present practice, and I could cite at least one example and probably more with a little research.-- Abd ( talk) 06:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How can a proposal disrupt? Suppose it is a proposal not to adopt another proposal. How does that disrupt anything? I haven't seen much come to WP:MFD that didn't beg the question, WP:WDYC. Larry E. Jordan ( talk) 06:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)blocked sockpuppet of Obuibo Mbstpo

Under standard parlipro, such a proposal would be immediately rejected as out of process. There is a proposal to stop debate, in that context, which is immediate and takes place within the process, not somewhere else, which is what happens if an MfD is opened. It's a motion to Table, which, if seconded, is not debated, it goes immediately to vote. Now, if we think of the MfD as a vote, fine. But we don't. Instead we debate. And that is the problem. If we are going to debate, it should remain in situ. RfC is one means of doing this. (RfC the question, should debate on this topic be shut down, and this takes place on the project Talk page.) And if a motion of any kind is disruptive it, again, should be shut down by immediately by vote without debate. Here, we substitute admin discretion for the vote, and then review as necessary; in truly disruptive matters the review might take place off-wiki, as through the ArbComm mailing list.-- Abd ( talk) 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they're not going to use parliamentary procedure, I see no reason why we need to. Larry E. Jordan ( talk) 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)blocked sockpuppet of Obuibo Mbstpo

Abd, you're incorrect. A proposal to reject another proposal, after debate had begun, would be more akin to a motion to postpone indefinitely a main motion and would be both debatable and in order. A motion to object to the consideration of a question is used to prevent another motion from even coming before the assembly and is undebatable. We don't really have undebatable motions on Wikipedia, so the situation here is akin to a convention that has adopted a standing rule that the motion to object to the consideration of a question shall not be in order at any time. Candi Marisa ( talk) 16:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)blocked sockpuppet of Obuibo Mbstpo

That's what you think. For example, I've seen discussions rapidly shut down on the Village Pump. It is done by any user who thinks it should be done. It just happened yesterday, with a discussion started by our very own Larry E. Jordan, and the only reason given was that it was by a banned user. Which isn't correct, and the discussion was quite interesting. I reverted it once (or twice), and beyond that I do not go. Even though there was really no discussion of it, there are people here who do very much rejection discussion. Yes, Postpone Indefinitely is a more drastic version, and, as such, is debatable. See below.-- Abd ( talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Village Pump case, what happened was more like a motion for previous question, which is used to cut off debate on a main motion after it has already begun. ( Objection to the consideration of a question is used before debate on the main motion has begun.) Of course, in parliamentary procedure, the potential for abuse of previous question and objection to the consideration of a question is mitigated by the requirement of a two-thirds vote. ( Postpone indefinitely requires only a majority.)

The point I was making earlier, though, is that a proposal not to adopt another proposal, even after debate has begun, is permissible under parliamentary procedure. So, there is nothing inherently disruptive about it. Candi Marisa ( talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)blocked sockpuppet of Obuibo Mbstpo

• We don't generally use parliamentary procedure here. We talk until we reach a consensus or otherwise finish. I think you both know that. We have an entire MfD and DRV thread to show that there is most definitely NOT consensus that proposals can't be MfD'd while they're under discussion or after they've failed. I personally have stated above that I don't think pending proposals should be MfD'd but I don't think that view represents consensus at all; even though there was consensus not to delete that particular proposal. Rather I see my position as a middle ground between Kim and those who wanted to delete the proposal. On the question of whether you can make the changes to the front-matter absent comment 1) there are probably all of five editors who watch the front matter so comments on that talk page are likely to go unnoticed, 2) we've been discussing and reverting this for some time (see this thread among other things) so you cannot (as Abd suggested on his usertalk page) simply make the changes in the absence of others answering your points. This is a policy implementation page, changes need to be made carefully. This area isn't settled, so it shouldn't change (or if it changes it should change to indicate a lack of agreement).-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Parliamentary procedure" is, as a general topic, the rules by which deliberation and decisions take place, so it would be more accurate that we do use parliamentary procedure, but we use special rules invented here, and often seem blissfully unaware that certain problems were solved long ago. If I were to claim that we should do something this or that way because that is "parliamentary procedure," as if these were rules binding on us, I'd be completely off the wall. When I began this, I was unaware that there had been discussion elsewhere; I naively assumed that discussion regarding a page's content would take place on Talk for that page, or would be linked from that page. The transclusion structure of the MfD page created this problem, I'm not sure why it is done that way....

The discussion that Jordan introduced on the Village Pump was about consensus and what it means. There is a common assumption in consensus communities that the status quo has precedence, and that, unless there is "consensus," you can't change things. However, this can mean that a strong majority of those involved can be opposed to some ongoing action or process and it still continues, because consensus does not exist to change it. In such a situation however, it is quite problematic to assert that the status quo "has consensus," or that attempts to change it are "contrary to consensus."

The change asserted was harmless, because of the general Wikipedia rule, rule number one, ignore all rules. It is clear that MfDing an active proposal is "frowned upon." If we say, instead, that it is improper and subject to closure, that is still not binding on anyone, and it does not prevent the MfD of some project page or proposal even if it is binding; all that happens is someone establishes the basis for it. In any case, what is happening is that Wikipedia is crystallizing into what I see as a fairly dysfunctional state. And I'm beginning to see that it is impossible to address this within the existing mechanisms. So, I'm building what can. That's all. And all the policies and guidelines can stay exactly as they are, and the community can continue to follow them or disregard them as it chooses.-- Abd ( talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to just drop a note to say how convenient the instructions were for listing a page for deletion. It was very easy to follow. Someone should do the same sort of set-up on AfD. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a new section in the essay WP:ATA, which will apply specifically to MfD discussions. See Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_useless. Walton ^One 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently stumbled, almost by accident, upon Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AndyJones/Triceratops in popular culture. Without commenting on the MfD itself, shouldn't there be some sort of rule that if you MfD something in userspace you leave a message for the user whose space it is in (in this case, me)? Perhaps we could get a bot to deal with it, to save it from being a responsibility of the nominator? AndyJones ( talk) 10:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. Those having something in thier userspace MfDed should definitely be notified. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could remove the "while not required" bit from the instructions and make informing the user/creator part of the process. - Koweja ( talk) 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion, as I don't believe that phrase is present in on the AfD guideline, so we should be consistent with XfDs. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• This has been discussed before and the consensus has always been that this is a best practice but should not be required. I don't recall anyone ever raising it in the specific context though of user space pages. We don't want to require notification of the creator of project or portal space (or Talk space - wow!) pages; and in some rare cases the creator may not be the user whose name the page is under. I would support a added line, to the effect that for user and usertalk pages, the user must be notified of the nomination. E.g. Nomination of User:Example/Examplesub1/Examplesub2 requires notification at Usertalk:Example, that makes sense but I'm not sure how to word it clearly. :-)-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  "Users should be notified when pages in their user space are nominated for deletion."? — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 17:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Noticed also the Afd's where not notifying the creator of the article. Example: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Baron_(2nd_nomination) , started by User_talk:LoopZilla no sign of notification. Example2: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nathan_Hale_(colonel), started by User_talk:Marc29th same. SunCreator ( talk) 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this here as part of the above discussion or should it be moved to WT:AFD?-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 02:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of moving closed discussions to the closed section, archiving closed days, and most exciting of all . . . advancing the old business marker. Think we could find a nice bot to do this for us? Any thoughts on which one?-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing we'd just make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, and let them try to devise on. I'll post such a request there now. John Carter ( talk) 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot is now running! -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the bot do this too? Closing admins are supposed to do this when they close the discussion but they almost never do anymore.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but the bot keeps "archiving" the old business marker which is pretty annoying. I can't seem to raise the bot's handler to find out what's going on or whether the bot is able to take on the above task.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 21:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, it looks like quite a few discussions were closed at the same time here, possibly by someone placing the bottom template too low? Was that what was intended? John Carter ( talk) 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Depending on users' preferences, the headings can be different, and therefore a static link link does not always work. I propose that the headers become static with the format of May 25, which would also match the other for deletion pages. MrKIA11 ( talk) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't the other pages have full YYYYMDD formats currently? (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 28). (With a significant difference being that MFD does not currently use per day sub-pages. Note, as long as it is consistent within this page I don't mind which format it is. Note, any tools being used may need to be updated to reflect any implemented change. Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about within the page, not the name of it. What tools are there? MrKIA11 ( talk) 01:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed back here: Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_2#Date though, I'd have to say my comments there are too dated to consider as reflecting my opinion now - I've gotten pretty used to seeing dates according to my preferences and am not so keen to see them changed. We appeared to have a consensus upon which no changes were made. I wouldn't say that consensus exists today though without further discussion. We've had MfD this way for a while and there have been other discussions for changing the layout since then, some partially implemented. We also now have an archive bot, the owner of which would need to be informed of any such change. Directly addressing the point above however, why would anyone ever link to the date? As pointed out these are separately transcluded pages. I don't think I've never seen anyone link to a date header on MFD, it's meaningless because we don't have day logs.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we state in the intro that bundling is not generally appropriate at MfD and that bundled nominations involving pages that are similar in type but not directly related (e.g. muliple band portals or projects for unrelated bands, user pages of a similar type but belonging to different users, etc.) will be speedy closed. Not that all bundled nominations are necessarily bad (several subpages of the same user for example) but the instances are rare and should be approached with caution. Large lists of bundled noms are a mess when some turn out to be keeps and some deletes and a long list of keeps to close generally means most admins passing through will keep right on moving as those are a lot of work to close properly.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 03:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

These can be problematic, but I think we should only suggest against them, not make a rule that they will be summarily dismissed. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles) was apparently "delete", but it's still there. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Where do you see it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/School related user templates closed with a snowball keep on March 4. Consensus was clear that User:Lady Aleena's attempts to remove all school user templates and replace them with her {{ User school}} template was both highly inappropriate and an undesirable removal of individuality amongst the templates. However, recently User:Rasamassen did some changes to the User school template then began editing other school templates to use this school template instead of their existing school. To me, this is clearly a silent deletion all of the templates after TfD said keep, and highly inappropriate. He started no discussions on this replacing with any relevant projects, editors, etc and had no consensus for the changes (which for many templates was a dramatic change in appearance and wording). I undid all of his edits and left a note on his talk page asking him to stop and explaining why. He seems to disagree that the TfD meant that he can't/should run around replacing existing school templates with the user school one. Since I don't know of Rasamassen will agree, or if he will continue such actions, I think additional input is required on whether his actions violate the closing of the TfD as a keep and if they are inappropriate? AnmaFinotera ( talk) 19:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the admin instructions to a subpage per this discussion. If someone who is more intimately familiar with the MfD process than I am could look over the new page and make sure it's up to date, that'd be great. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 20:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Discussions heading should be removed and all of the headings below be increased by one level in the hierarchy, mainly because then the headings will be the same level as the other XFD pages. (H3 instead of H4). MrKIA11 ( talk) 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They are helpful for section editing when filing closed discussions. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also to seperate the backlog marked, I've reverted this change..but we can certainly have more discussion here. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really that difficult to click the edit at the top of the page instead of editing "discussions"? It only adds 6 more lines in the edit window. MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

These sub sections (Active, Old, Closed) are all components of Discussions, on the flip side, why create more top level numbers? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is that by clicking on the top of the article instead of clicking the just for the Discussions section, you only add 6 more lines to the edit window, so you are basically seeing the same thing. The only difference is that /*Discussions*/ is not automatically put in the edit summary. What do you mean by "create more top level numbers"? MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree and that I should change everything back now? OK, sound good. MrKIA11 ( talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a no, by top level, I'm referring to top level table of contents entries. As for changing this central discussion page, I'd be inclined to give the rest of the community a chance to weigh in here to gather a deeper consensus. Personally, I like it the way it is; but I'm inclined to follow a larger community decision. Consideration to any scripts or other helper programs that are making entries should be given as well (if they are not subst'ing the exising templates). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Letting others weigh in is fine with me, but I don't think many people pay attention to this talk page, so I'm only going to wait so long. The table of contents would be getting smaller by one line, not bigger...? And I have not seen any edits by bots recently, but yes, those should be considered if there are any. MrKIA11 ( talk) 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do a lot of maintenance on this page, and like it the way it is, so object to you restructuring it. Looks like we have a meta-content dispute. As we seem to be at in impasse, revert warring over the style will not be productive, so waiting until others comment on it here seems to be the next step in dispute resolution. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Soooo...now what? I still don't understand why it makes a difference to you personally on whether it is changed. MrKIA11 ( talk) 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's apparent you totally miss the 'DISCUSS' part of bolv,revert,discuss and this is heading for a revert war, that isn't going to be helpful; I'm not going to rever you yet though in case any supporters of the new ehading want to chime in here first... — xaosflux ^Talk 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been filing here for only a few weeks now, and I don't like the change. Things should remain how they were, and changing them with no real consensus was a mistake in my opinion. I was tempted to revert them all, as I hadn't noticed this discussion thread. Patience and restraint go a long way. — _Maggot ^Syn 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I waited 2 weeks for someone to say something, but not a single word. I don't want to get into an edit war, but what is the difference between now and before? MrKIA11 ( talk) 13:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference, is that you went ahead and changed it after there was opposition. Making the changes once opposition is met is bad form in my opinion. I'd like to request that you revert yourself, so we don't have to. — _Maggot ^Syn 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

'I thought it was safe to assume that after a week of no response from the only opposition, that they changed their mind. If I was making a large change, I would agree with you, but since I deleted 1 line from page, which makes no difference as far as I can see (please give me your reason for disagreement), I'd rather wait until this discussion is finished, and not as it did before with waiting for more opinions. MrKIA11 ( talk) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My reasons are very similar to Xaosflux's, and I'll expand on them. Looking at the bigger picture here, the way things were is something of a standard format for XfD's. WP:TfD, WP:RfD, and WP:AfD all use this same format. So what we are looking at here is a format change for the rest as well. Something of this nature needs a lot more time to discuss, and positioned properly. Centralized discussion (or WP:CENT) is the proper place to seek consensus as most people don't watch the MfD page, just their nominations. I may be incorrect, but currently, me and Xaosflux are the only ones who actively file and archive these discussions and we prefer it remain how it is. So let me ask you again, will you revert it back? — _Maggot ^Syn 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you even realize what I did. The way it is now is the same as WP:TfD and WP:RfD, and WP:AfD is not even close to either version. As I said before, I will change it at the conclusion of this discussion if that is the decision. (Oh, and you only gave 1 reason, which wasn't even brought up by Xaosflux). MrKIA11 ( talk) 14:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. I also agree with Xaosflux, and I expanded on my reasons. Which means I'm agreeing with him and adding my own reason. And no its not the same as the other WP:XfD's. I double checked before posting. — _Maggot ^Syn 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not sure about the other XfDs, so I checked before I responded to you:

MfD	TfD	RfD
Active discussions	Current discussions	Current list
Date	Date	Date
Page	Page	Page

and WP:AfD has separate pages for each day, so I don't see how you think it is the same. MrKIA11 ( talk) 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not so MrKIA11:

• MfD - as of right now

• Discussions:=Active discussions=
• Date:==[[2008-06-29]]==
• Transcluded page example:===[[User:Aeon1006]]===

• MfD before you changed it

• Discussions=Discussions=
• Date:==Active discussions==
• Date:===[[2008-06-29]]===
• Transcluded page example:====[[User:Aeon1006]]====

AfD was a bad example since there are clearly more of them, and each day is a log, so it can't count towards this argument. On to RfD, TfD and others:

• == Current discussions == from WP:TfD

• ==Current list== from WP:RfD

• ==Listings== from WP:SfD

• == Recent nominations == from WP:IfD

• ==New nominations by date== from WP:UCFD

• ==[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active|Active discussions]]== from DrV (not an XfD but to fruther my examples)

I'd also like to point you to Wikipedia:Headers#Headings. Notice that your changes are clearly not reflecting current practice and I'm not seeing a reason to change this, or your reasoning as valid. — _Maggot ^Syn 15:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh. You are talking about the level? Ha, ok. So if everything just gets shifted down one level, you'll be happy? MrKIA11 ( talk) 22:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What else were we talking about? — _Maggot ^Syn 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed =Discussions=, which I thought was the problem. I will lower everything by one level. MrKIA11 ( talk) 11:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — _Maggot ^Syn 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that there were a few MfD's for the 6th in the log for the 5th? Any idea why that happened? I'm only asking because it would give each of those mfd's one less day to comment on. — _Maggot ^Syn 12:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you ever see these feel free to move them. It's usually a local time vs UTC matter for whoever put it up there. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For me posting all the User:Omghax111 Mfd's, and also for the similar text in the reasoning; the same problems and therefore reasons for deletion affect most of them. Ironho lds 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just format them like we do at AfD? Multiple articles with the same reason. If not, I'd be willing to help close all of them out, if an admin deletes all of them when the MfD's are over. Cheers. — _Maggot ^Syn 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for awhile and I see that the old business marker has disappeared once again. It's a very helpful tool and helps keep people from accidentally closing things early as well as pointing out how much is overdue. Is there a reason it left? I know the bot was archiving it at one point but I thought we got that fixed.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done - looks like someone took care of this. Thanks.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 20:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was away for about a month and when I got back I was baffled to see the bot gone and nobody I asked knew anything about it. I looked around and finally found this: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/MfDBot. Any chance anyone can make this thing work and get it up and running again? I used to sort of manage this page by default and it gets pretty darned tiring to move closed discussions to the closed section, archive completed days, and most exciting of all - move the old business marker forward. I'm glad some others are doing that now but this is really bot work. Save the humans for the hard decisions.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, I blocked that bot for technical reasons only, if it can be made to work then we can certainly trial and use a bot here! The last bot's errors were burying discussions (e.g. when moving them from active to closed, or closed to archive it would remove from one section--but not add to the other.) — xaosflux ^Talk 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had no problem helping out over here. If someone wants to fix the bot, thats also fine. If its too much trouble to move the marker everyday or so, then I'll do it till its fixed. :) — _Maggot ^Syn 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions - I have made a proposal that TfDs and CfDs be handled in the same way as AfDs and MfDs, as transcluded subpages. A small consensus seems to have formed, but there have been few responses. As these are very important Wikipedia pages, please take a look and help form a broader consensus (or tear it apart). Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 08:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I found Wikipedia:Wikipedia in culture, which seems to be a copy of Wikipedia in culture. It does not seem to belong on the wiki-space. Should it be posted for MFD? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good find. I think we can save ourselves the trouble of an MfD on this one. It was a copy and paste move to another namespace. I asked an admin to remove it (also saving the trouble of a CNR). — _Maggot ^Syn 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for best User page/Archive and saw that a mainpage was deleted via debate, but some associated pages and subpages were left behind. Is there a structured way to include other pages when one like this is deleted? Also, is there a way view information related to the deletion of a page? Becky Sayles ( talk) 23:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please see stricken nom at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of battles and other violent events by death toll‎ as per agreement to userfy. Thanks. Ling. Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought this would be of some particular interest to MfD regulars: A lot of MfDs come about because they're non-article pages getting high google/search results. I noticed that just recently we got a new magic word called __NOINDEX__ that can exclude individual pages from search bots. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Technology report#New features. -- Ned Scott 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MfD should be abolished. It is useless, a waste of time and harmful to the project; yet unlike many of the pages it seeks to delete, MfD can't be safely dealt with by simply ignoring it. Because it has been given power to delete pages, MfD represents yet another piece of bureaucratic machinery that has to be monitored in order to prevent abuses.

MfD doesn't coordinate improvements to any pages; it mostly seeks to destroy them. And while this can indirectly lead to some positive changes, by forcing people up against a wall and making them try to hurriedly try to defend and improve their work, it often causes a lot of bad blood due to its confrontational methodology. It stirs up more drama and resentment than many of the pages it seeks to delete, frequently butts into people's userspace for questionable reasons, discourages people from experimenting with innovative reforms/processes in the Wikipedia namespace, often attempts to hinder legitimate caucusing efforts, etc.

The extent to which editors matter far, far outweighs anything we could hope to gain by allegedly curbing some abuses in userspace, etc. If you piss off one productive editor so that he leaves, the loss is tremendous. And I would guess that if Wikipedia were a profit-seeking entity, the management would take the initiative to eliminate MfD, because it drives away many fine volunteers who are providing free labor. But we seem to regard them not so much as scarce, valuable productive resources vital to our success but as readily expendable, replaceable, and subordinate to arbitrary and inconsistently-applied standards of what will and won't be allowed. MfD is hurting Wikipedia, and it should be given the heave-ho.

I say, tag MfD as historical and let's be done with it. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 14:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you propose that we deal with pages which need to be removed? Mayalld ( talk) 15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the pages that MfD currently deals with actually need to be removed. The worst-case scenario is that objectionable pages can be redirected elsewhere or blanked (perhaps with a note, "this page intentionally left blank"). This would increase transparency since the history would remain available. For the relatively small number of pages that we are required to remove, such as copyvios, or pages revealing personal information about Wikipedians, etc. summary processes already exist for dealing with them. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Where would you propose its deletion? To MfD? Seriously I think you exaggerate the drama and ill will. Like other deletion forums these are present, but also like other deletion forums, it quietly does a lot of good in improving wikipedia. I think it should remain. -- Bduke ( talk) 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned, MfD would not be deleted; it would be marked historical.

Deletion of articles, templates or anything else (unless legally required) is inherently inimical to the success of Wikipedia. People can say "Well, we need to get rid of junk" but it's a slippery slope, because then you open it up to the kind of mess that exists today. Wikipedia relies for its success on people who take pride in their work and believe in the value of what they are doing enough to do a reasonably high-quality job. Yet, the deletion process seems to expect these same people to readily abandon their view of the page's worth, and good-naturedly knuckle under to what the "consensus" views to be the greater good. In reality, non-involved editors are quite often wrong (Wikipedia already does not require its writers to be subject matter experts, but random people trolling the xfDs are even less likely to know anything about a subject than the people who at least put forth enough effort to write something.)

It wouldn't matter so much if people just wanted to blank a page or temporarily redirect; at least that is readily undoable, since the previous version is available in the history and there is no prejudice against reversion. But xfDs are often basically just a pile-on of uninformed people trashing someone else's work, and seeking to put it into a deleted state from which it will be relatively difficult to resurrect. All in all, Wikipedia has lost a lot of good editors to that kind of stuff, and it has been prevented from reaching its potential. The people who remain tend to just stick to comparatively mainstream subjects that they KNOW with 100% certainty will be safe from deletion, because they've been burned too many times trying to push the envelope. The result is that our article base is nowhere near as comprehensive as it could and should be, and we are not making full use of the possibilities the User and Wikipedia namespaces offer for community-building and many other ancillary functions. The heavy-handed deletion we have decided to pursue instead, in my opinion, reflects short-sightedness and timidity over what would happen if we allowed a little more freedom of expression, for lack of a better word.

And let me just pre-empt certain responses by saying, Please, no patronizing quotation of acronyms such WP:FREE. I think people get into a knee-jerk mode in which certain things trigger them to automatically start spouting off a bunch of WP shortcuts, as if that proves their argument. Policy and guidelines are quite malleable, and will follow whatever people start actually doing in practice. This is essentially a challenge de novo of MfD, without regard to policy/guidelines/etc. laid down in the past. Obviously, what I'm proposing is to change what's been established. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would rather see things move in the other direction. There is far too much cruft in non-article space for my taste, and I would rather see more effort made to clean it up. In article space, I don't see it as a flaw if people stick to mainstream topics that are safe from deletion - I see it as professional behavior for an encyclopedia. My impression of the deletion process is that it is actually in the middle between various extremes. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence in this assertion that MFD is becoming a machination of THE CABAL to push people off the wiki. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal as much, but some productive editors do seem to be getting pissed off and leaving, as noted at Wikipedia_talk:Editors_matter_but...#A_critique; and I lay part of the blame on deletionists. It doesn't really matter whether they are an organized cabal as such; the effect is the same. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 17:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has to be a joke, right? Syn ergy 12:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed that user and user talk pages should not be eligible for PROD. See WT:PROD#Prodding user pages -- Ned Scott 06:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• N.B. - WP:PROD is no longer available for user and user talk pages per Wikipedia_talk:PROD#Prodding_user_pages.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea that the old business marker is a template but I'm not sure that it should automatically report an admin backlog. Discussions are not eligible for closure normally until five days are complete, the fact that five days have run does not instantly create a backlog of the prior days discussions, an admin backlog should only be reported when there really is one. Consequently, I'm going to be bold and comment out the backlog portion of the template until further discussion.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you say does qualify as a backlog, I transcluded it to avoid putting: {{ mfdbacklog}}{{ adminbacklog}} on the page each time. As these are manual generally by the time someone puts this one back up there there are multiple past-dues. Is your goal to say that past due discussions don't require admin attention until they are past due for a certain period? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion over there. This issue is over the template. I've already commented here. Syn ergy 03:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to anyone looking here, the discussion regarding categorization of the old business marker at Template_talk:Mfdbacklog has expanded into a discussion of when it should be advanced.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 10:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

{{ Catfd3}} is your new friend. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether we do relists for MfDs as for AfDs or how else we treat MfDs with little participation taking into account that prod isn't available. Thoughts?-- Tikiwont ( talk) 08:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see three options in this case. The first is simple; relist to generate more discussion. The next two are not. Theres the delete and keep approach.

To delete, would mean it went uncontested. For this to happen, the full process would have to be adhered to (for instance: userspace pages need to be discussed first, if this didn't happen, or if the author is not aware, it would be unreasonable to just delete it). Deletion, for the most part, seems unlikely in most cases and there would have to be good reason to do so without the consensus (then theres the issue with contested deletions at DRV, outrage, cries of abuse, etc. and we don't want that). One of those reasons could be that it clearly violates policy, in which case it could be deleted per the discretion of the admin. Overall, we would have to set up guidelines for these types of deletions.

For keeping, it would seem logical to keep by default as no consensus to delete. In most cases, I would have already speedy kept it, for a lack of deletion reason (if that were the case). In the case that there is mild conversation, it would all depend on the flow of that conversation then.

Or was I just rambling? Syn ergy 08:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you haven't been rambling. My starting point was that I haven't really noticed any relistings nor do the admin instructions mention them. I might try one out in any case, i.e. move it to the top again as all MfD are on this page anyways. A fourth option for admins and others alike that do see an MfD with little input is to participate, of course. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)e

Right. They can't remain neutral forever. My ramblings were localized to the outcomes. If most or all of the admins (and there really aren't many) that normally watch MfD went and participated, then we'd have to wait until another uninvolved one happens along though! :) Syn ergy 19:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not only 'them'; nor did I want to trigger a wave of relists. Well, we'll see how it works out.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 09:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a way you sort of did just that. MFD doesn't get as much participation that AfD does, so I never bothered to test the relist out here. Now, as you can see, an initiator of three MfDs has chosen to relist all the discussions themselves. Syn ergy 17:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• We do use relist here, we've done it often in the past, it just depends on how much discussion is going on. We may not have used it much in the past few months but we used to. At the same time, {{ relist}} is intended (by it's own documentation terms) for AfD only on the assumption that a lack of interest elsewhere is not going to change just because it sits around longer. It all depends, sometimes two or three comments (!votes) is enough to determine consensus, sometimes it's not, then it just depends whether the closer wants to close as "no consensus" (many believe this is an admin only close - I am in the minority at DELPRO to take the position that it's a proper NAC) or to see if consensus develops with age. Synergy, I don't understand why you would "Speedy Keep" a no-consensus, that would be improper.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 02:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the first criteria of SK mentions it. More specifically, if a nom states something else to be done besides deletion, then it shouldn't be a deletion discussion. I'll admit, most of time this wouldn't apply if the desire is to tag something as historical, but there are other times when its clearly a speedy keep. Syn ergy 08:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

{{ mfd}} has changed substantially. The template was protected and I saw essentially no discussion, there was a {{ editprotected}} request to overhaul the whole thing but no discussion of the matter that I could see. Can anyone explain to me why this ocurred? -- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• All of the deletion tags use that new style. There's probably a discussion board somewhere where they've discussed template overhauls as a whole. Trick is finding it. - Nard 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't get it. I think that the color coding was better. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, message box standardisation has been ongoing for several years now, and has involved hundreds of users. It started with the standardisation of the brown talk page message boxes in 2005: Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Then we standardised the article message boxes in 2007: Wikipedia:Article message boxes. And some months ago we standardised the looks for message boxes in the remaining namespaces. See {{ imbox}}, {{ cmbox}} and {{ ombox}} and their talk pages.

The message box standardisation has been announced every now and then all over Wikipedia, among others in the Village pumps and the Signpost, and we have even had watchlist messages.

The image to the right shows why we did this standardisation. That image is a screenshot of an actual article, before the message box standardisation.

-- David Göthberg ( talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've recently seen several deletions of MFD discussions, in at least 2 discussions the original nominator appeared to desire to withdraw the nomination but instead db-authored it. Amazingly not one but two admins deleted, the first restored at my request but apparently left the db-author tag, another came along and deleted as well. He also restored when I asked but this is ominous. XFD discussions should almost never be deleted (there is apparently one recent exception of a Huggle test, but that's an issue in itself, just a completely different one); most amazingly of all, these didn't qualify under G7 (I guess one could argue G6 but I really don't like the idea of deleting a discussion where people have commented just because it's snow/uninformed nominator). The two discussions that I happened across, only because I was looking through the recent edits to the MfD page were: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JJGD445 and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:BigOleDickForNancy, I have closed both as procedural closes/withdrawn by nominator.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 03:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. I've actually argued against these types of deletions elsewhere. Unless its an obvious mistake, they need to be archived for reference. Syn ergy 03:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.