This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 1 October 2008–30 September 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
There were over 20 pages on Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion that were not listed here. I've worked through the whole list, appears about 50% usual newbie listing errors, but the rest appear to be people listing via scripted processes that are broken. Any idea which scripts may be messed up now? — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
← *Let me start over. A few weeks ago I never noticed any issues. Now I notice when I post it comes up +5 hours. I understand the concept of the UTC vs local time, I am just saying I did not notice it before and I think this is the overall issue. When using Twinkle, if the server time has flipped to the next day and the local time has not yet flipped over it will not post anything on the MfD pages because the new day has not been created yet. It seems to be that the main variation is that when doing an MfD it returns an error that it "can not find the page requested" whereas when tagging an AfD I have noticed that, at times, the message will be posted (Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.) will be a redlink. I did not equate this being a time/date "local Vs. server" issue until now. Server time is +5 from me I have figured out, so if I posted something at "19:01" local time it may fail if the next days page has not yet been created on the server. (EDIT - as it it now the "next day" on server time I tool a look and there is not a "November 12, 2008" header so any Twinkle created MfD's will be created right now but would not be posted under "November 12, 2008" as it does not yet exist. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this should go to MfD or not. User:Wellus page that is somewhat set up like a personal web host with a personal photo album: User:Wellus/Photo which goes to: User:Wellus/Photo/2007. (EDIT: I just relzied the whole main page has links to subpage that are somewhat "bloggish" - User:Wellus/Philosophy, User:Wellus/Miscellaneous, User:Wellus/America) Thanks Soundvisions1 ( talk) 05:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled across User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox and I see it has been there since January 27, 2007 and has been tagged {{ in use}} since February 11, 2008. The last "work" was done February 12, 2008 and on September 12, 2008 the {{ in use}} was "disable tag from userspace". The user who seemed to be doing the most work on it was blocked in April 2008 and unblocked the next day. The last post/edits by this user was to their user page on April 21 saying, first, "Now do you see why I quit?" and than expanding on that to read "Now do you see why I quit? These people are INSANE." So my question is does there/is there a need/reason keep this sandbox? (For further reference you can look at David Lovelace, the creator of RAB and whose article was created by Eric Barbour, as well as the Revision history of David Lovelace) I guess I could also ask if the user page is acceptable as well? Soundvisions1 ( talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking for a while that we need daily logs. I know it would require changes to the way pages are listed and both the mfd and oldmfd tags worked but it would also:
1. make it much easier to go back over pages to see if they've been closed properly (I've noticed a lot of issues lately with pages not being closed completely.
2. obviate the need for moving closed discussions to the closed discussions section of the MFD page and then archiving them manually when a day is done; you'd simply leave them in their respective days in their closed status and then untransclude the day when it was complete.
3. days could be listed at MfD without full transclusion, only open days would be listed and when you accessed a day all discussions would be fully transcluded.
This is a combination of the discussion pages from TFD and what we have now, more like AFD is set up. Thoughts?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed an issue with the default reason when I delete pages listed on MFD recently. Normally it would list the reason as:
But several recently have read:
Any ideas what is causing this?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Please voice your opinion on a proposed change to the "Userfication of deleted content" guideline. Thank you. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 15:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, it's not a guideline. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Are mfd tags supposed to stay in Wikipedia pages forever? Or should they get removed after awhile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, maintaining this page is a real pain in the butt. I'm wondering if there are any objections to formatting MfD like WP:DRV, where each day is on a log page, and then the log pages are transcluded. Currently, each discussion is transcluded directly, requiring manual archiving, which is time-consuming. I've filed a bot request to get this automated, but if it doesn't happen, I'd like to take some other steps towards making this maintenance-friendly.-- Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that DRV has its own issues, however, I think having a daily log page at MfD (rather than a separate page for every discussion) would be better. See how WP:CFD works, for example.
An excellent example of a comment that's likely to be overlooked in this format, but would be less likely to under CfD's format is NYB's at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/The Thadman.
In that case, perhaps having the the noms combined into a group nom might be helpful, but there are times (as is possibly true in this case) where nominating them separately due to concerns which may be unique to one or more pages may be more useful to the discussion achieving consensus.
And btw, I believe CfD has archiving bots as well. (Besides the daily log itself being a de facto archive.) I would presume that the bot owners would be happy to help set up whatever would be necessary. - jc37 23:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The template {{ mfd}} and its cousin currently do not put the pages into Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion. I've left a note at the respective template talk. Something else currently populates the category with 51 userpages. i thought it might be due to User:Jw21/deUBdomain/notnarrow alt that had a wrong oldmfdfull tag, but fixing that didn't help.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Has been fixed by now, and I am doing the dummy edits as may are on unmaintained user pages to have the category clean, assuming that any stray nominations during the last month are found in some other way.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I created the first deletion tag on a MfD (incorrectly) at 16:13, 26 February 2009. [1] 7 minutes later, at 16:19, 26 February 2009, THF forked the article. [2] Editors are not supposed to fork articles which are in MfD/Afd. User:THF knows better. He then attempted to create a second MfD within the first. [3] I moved these comments to the talk page. [4] Ikip ( talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have started a thread to Stop the wholesale Deletion of the Usepages of Indefinitely Blocked Users at WT:CSD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that Afd has been extended to seven days, see Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days, does anyone object to lengthening the term here to seven days, due to the same reasons?-- Aervanath ( talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there's sufficiently few instances that a new venue need not be created, but I do think we should provide some guidance on where to list disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. Please provide your thoughts here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. – xeno talk 16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
A Man In Black ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) who has now been blocked for 9 days for edit warring, had reverted three editors on the page 4 times. [5] [6] [7] [8]
Less than two hours later, he put the entire project up for deletion, as his final act of edit warring. [9]
See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)
Since this MFD is simply a continuation of the edit warring, can this MFD be closed? Editors can open a new MFD if they wish. Is that possible? Ikip ( talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
xeno, this is simply the closest example I had. I don't know if this is even possible, that is why I came here.
Bali, you continue to defend AMIB by stating WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR but you repeatedly ignore that in AMIB's own MFD nomniation mentioned several behavioral issues. So AMIB is free to talk about behavioral issues (because he supports your stance), but other editors cannot?
This is what is disingenuous. Ikip ( talk) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is one of the only xFD venues where the closure goes ABOVE the header, I'd suggest we standardize it so the closing template goes BELOW the header (unless there is some technical reason I haven't yet realized). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has trouble keeping straight which xF closing templates go above, and which go below, the header. – xeno talk 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This has come up every few months, and lately (especially with the 7-day discussion length) the page is really getting messy. Are there any suggestions for keeping this page in better order? Past suggestions have included:
Anybody else have any good ideas? I think the current format works fine, it's just the maintenance which is a pain. So if anybody can get a bot or script that would take care of it, that would be nice. As I've stated in the past, I personally think DRV is formatted the most conveniently for a lower-traffic discussion page like this; every time a discussion is closed, it's surrounded by an auto-collapsing box which makes it really easy to scroll through the various discussions. Others haven't like that format so much, although I think it would be the easiest change to make, since the only thing we'd have to change would be {{ mfd top}} and {{ mfd bottom}}. I would also be ok with converting to a CFD/RFD style system, where each discussion is only a section on the daily log page, instead of its own separate page. That wouldn't be my first choice, though I haven't been able to articulate why I prefer having each discussion on its own page, though. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Ideas, anybody?-- Aervanath ( talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A subpage of mine was nominated for deletion without my ever being notified of it. I don't think this is a good idea. If the nominator does not notify the user he is nominating a subpage for deletion, can a bot be run to automate this? Chubbles ( talk) 15:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be okay if, as part of the automation process, I did away with the "Closed Discussions" section and merged it with the archive page? This will keep things more organized for the bot, especially since the bot won't be touching discussions that have been closed for less than three days. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Okay, so what if the collapse looked like this:
Blah blah blah
Would that work? → ROUX ₪ 07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not think anything involving ParserFunctions and the FULLPAGENAME being equal to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion will get the job done. Just now I thought of an idea, and I will see if it is worth implementing. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 01:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My bot is able to identify MfD debates that have been closed for one day (I lowered it from three days), but it cannot properly archive them. After I get that working, you will be able to tell. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The script worked successfully. Please take a look at WP:MFD, the June archive, the July archive, and tell me if you are pleased with the results. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the above section, I have implemented the code. Now to run the script again. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
For folks that are interested in closes. I posted a question about adding a close date and time to XfD items: posted at: XfD thread — Ched : ? 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In line with my now standard arguments for blanking/redirecting in preference to listing at MfD for many abandoned or otherwise uncontroversial userspace pages, arguments which often are not disputed and even form the consensus conclusion, I have modified userpage guidance at Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting.2C_or_otherwise_fixing.2C_other_users.27_userpages_and_subpages. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate Talk:Huperprogeny and Talk:Huperson for deletion. Clear vandalism, but did you see that there was a "Huperprogeny" section on [www.bjaodn.org/wiki/Main_Page]? Even clearer vandalism. -- 220.255.7.156 ( talk) 06:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we "noindex" MfD? Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
A user page and the talk page are listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the discussion is still active. The user removed the MfD templates from his user page and his talkpage, and I restored them. Then I began to wonder if it was appropriate to restore the templates. On the English Wikipedia, I understand that the general rule is that users are allowed to remove templates from their own user and talk pages. On the other hand, this is an ongoing matter and the templates are not only directed at the user but are also used to communicate with others that visit the pages.
If it's not Ok to remove it then the relevant pages should be updated (like Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments, warnings and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments). Sjö ( talk) 18:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The bot is now tasked with doing basic cleanup of the page. Removing excess carriage returns has been in mfdarchiver.php for a while, but now the bot enforces consistency in the arrangement of MFDs (namely, one carriage return after each transclusion, two carriage returns at the end of a date section) and empty sections are removed. This shows the changes in effect. @ harej 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
For primary User and User_talk pages, it often seems inappropriate to actually delete the pages. I wonder if we should actually start using something like pure wiki deletion for primary user pages (not subpages). We would need an exception to this for copyright violations, and maybe highly offensive material, but I'm not even sure about the latter.
In practice, I have been suggesting blanking when the user is inactive, and !voting delete otherwise. The only real reason I'm voting delete on active users is because we don't have an "official" blanking process which would give blanking the same weight as a deletion in terms of the user restoring the material against consensus. What do you all think? Gigs ( talk) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Articles in user space which haven't yet been put in to the article space need to be deleted. There should be a user-page type prod method which gives the user 31 days to either move the article in to article space, or if it has been previously been deleted list it at WP:DRV. This would save lots of pointless listings at MFD and make it a much more easier job to deal with spam in user space.-- Otterathome ( talk) 12:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Are succession boxes put up for deletion through MfD or TfD? Either way, I don't see how to place a nomination tag on one. Help a brother out? Otto4711 ( talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
On occasion, an article or something equally inappropriate will get sent to MFD. While they are speedily closed, and rightfully so, they're still archived like every other MfD. I don't really think they're worth keeping around, so I propose that rather than closing misplaced MfD discussions, they are promptly deleted. @ harej 02:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, not trying to forum shop, I just thought that MfD regulars would want to comment on this idea: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposed_Criterion.2C_U5. My question is, how many "secret pages" come up for deletion here, is it the kind of thing that could be done quicker with less arguing? Irbisgreif ( talk) 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 1 October 2008–30 September 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
There were over 20 pages on Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion that were not listed here. I've worked through the whole list, appears about 50% usual newbie listing errors, but the rest appear to be people listing via scripted processes that are broken. Any idea which scripts may be messed up now? — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
← *Let me start over. A few weeks ago I never noticed any issues. Now I notice when I post it comes up +5 hours. I understand the concept of the UTC vs local time, I am just saying I did not notice it before and I think this is the overall issue. When using Twinkle, if the server time has flipped to the next day and the local time has not yet flipped over it will not post anything on the MfD pages because the new day has not been created yet. It seems to be that the main variation is that when doing an MfD it returns an error that it "can not find the page requested" whereas when tagging an AfD I have noticed that, at times, the message will be posted (Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.) will be a redlink. I did not equate this being a time/date "local Vs. server" issue until now. Server time is +5 from me I have figured out, so if I posted something at "19:01" local time it may fail if the next days page has not yet been created on the server. (EDIT - as it it now the "next day" on server time I tool a look and there is not a "November 12, 2008" header so any Twinkle created MfD's will be created right now but would not be posted under "November 12, 2008" as it does not yet exist. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this should go to MfD or not. User:Wellus page that is somewhat set up like a personal web host with a personal photo album: User:Wellus/Photo which goes to: User:Wellus/Photo/2007. (EDIT: I just relzied the whole main page has links to subpage that are somewhat "bloggish" - User:Wellus/Philosophy, User:Wellus/Miscellaneous, User:Wellus/America) Thanks Soundvisions1 ( talk) 05:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled across User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox and I see it has been there since January 27, 2007 and has been tagged {{ in use}} since February 11, 2008. The last "work" was done February 12, 2008 and on September 12, 2008 the {{ in use}} was "disable tag from userspace". The user who seemed to be doing the most work on it was blocked in April 2008 and unblocked the next day. The last post/edits by this user was to their user page on April 21 saying, first, "Now do you see why I quit?" and than expanding on that to read "Now do you see why I quit? These people are INSANE." So my question is does there/is there a need/reason keep this sandbox? (For further reference you can look at David Lovelace, the creator of RAB and whose article was created by Eric Barbour, as well as the Revision history of David Lovelace) I guess I could also ask if the user page is acceptable as well? Soundvisions1 ( talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking for a while that we need daily logs. I know it would require changes to the way pages are listed and both the mfd and oldmfd tags worked but it would also:
1. make it much easier to go back over pages to see if they've been closed properly (I've noticed a lot of issues lately with pages not being closed completely.
2. obviate the need for moving closed discussions to the closed discussions section of the MFD page and then archiving them manually when a day is done; you'd simply leave them in their respective days in their closed status and then untransclude the day when it was complete.
3. days could be listed at MfD without full transclusion, only open days would be listed and when you accessed a day all discussions would be fully transcluded.
This is a combination of the discussion pages from TFD and what we have now, more like AFD is set up. Thoughts?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed an issue with the default reason when I delete pages listed on MFD recently. Normally it would list the reason as:
But several recently have read:
Any ideas what is causing this?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Please voice your opinion on a proposed change to the "Userfication of deleted content" guideline. Thank you. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 15:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, it's not a guideline. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Are mfd tags supposed to stay in Wikipedia pages forever? Or should they get removed after awhile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, maintaining this page is a real pain in the butt. I'm wondering if there are any objections to formatting MfD like WP:DRV, where each day is on a log page, and then the log pages are transcluded. Currently, each discussion is transcluded directly, requiring manual archiving, which is time-consuming. I've filed a bot request to get this automated, but if it doesn't happen, I'd like to take some other steps towards making this maintenance-friendly.-- Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that DRV has its own issues, however, I think having a daily log page at MfD (rather than a separate page for every discussion) would be better. See how WP:CFD works, for example.
An excellent example of a comment that's likely to be overlooked in this format, but would be less likely to under CfD's format is NYB's at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/The Thadman.
In that case, perhaps having the the noms combined into a group nom might be helpful, but there are times (as is possibly true in this case) where nominating them separately due to concerns which may be unique to one or more pages may be more useful to the discussion achieving consensus.
And btw, I believe CfD has archiving bots as well. (Besides the daily log itself being a de facto archive.) I would presume that the bot owners would be happy to help set up whatever would be necessary. - jc37 23:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The template {{ mfd}} and its cousin currently do not put the pages into Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion. I've left a note at the respective template talk. Something else currently populates the category with 51 userpages. i thought it might be due to User:Jw21/deUBdomain/notnarrow alt that had a wrong oldmfdfull tag, but fixing that didn't help.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Has been fixed by now, and I am doing the dummy edits as may are on unmaintained user pages to have the category clean, assuming that any stray nominations during the last month are found in some other way.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I created the first deletion tag on a MfD (incorrectly) at 16:13, 26 February 2009. [1] 7 minutes later, at 16:19, 26 February 2009, THF forked the article. [2] Editors are not supposed to fork articles which are in MfD/Afd. User:THF knows better. He then attempted to create a second MfD within the first. [3] I moved these comments to the talk page. [4] Ikip ( talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have started a thread to Stop the wholesale Deletion of the Usepages of Indefinitely Blocked Users at WT:CSD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that Afd has been extended to seven days, see Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days, does anyone object to lengthening the term here to seven days, due to the same reasons?-- Aervanath ( talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there's sufficiently few instances that a new venue need not be created, but I do think we should provide some guidance on where to list disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. Please provide your thoughts here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. – xeno talk 16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
A Man In Black ( talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) who has now been blocked for 9 days for edit warring, had reverted three editors on the page 4 times. [5] [6] [7] [8]
Less than two hours later, he put the entire project up for deletion, as his final act of edit warring. [9]
See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)
Since this MFD is simply a continuation of the edit warring, can this MFD be closed? Editors can open a new MFD if they wish. Is that possible? Ikip ( talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
xeno, this is simply the closest example I had. I don't know if this is even possible, that is why I came here.
Bali, you continue to defend AMIB by stating WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR but you repeatedly ignore that in AMIB's own MFD nomniation mentioned several behavioral issues. So AMIB is free to talk about behavioral issues (because he supports your stance), but other editors cannot?
This is what is disingenuous. Ikip ( talk) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is one of the only xFD venues where the closure goes ABOVE the header, I'd suggest we standardize it so the closing template goes BELOW the header (unless there is some technical reason I haven't yet realized). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has trouble keeping straight which xF closing templates go above, and which go below, the header. – xeno talk 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This has come up every few months, and lately (especially with the 7-day discussion length) the page is really getting messy. Are there any suggestions for keeping this page in better order? Past suggestions have included:
Anybody else have any good ideas? I think the current format works fine, it's just the maintenance which is a pain. So if anybody can get a bot or script that would take care of it, that would be nice. As I've stated in the past, I personally think DRV is formatted the most conveniently for a lower-traffic discussion page like this; every time a discussion is closed, it's surrounded by an auto-collapsing box which makes it really easy to scroll through the various discussions. Others haven't like that format so much, although I think it would be the easiest change to make, since the only thing we'd have to change would be {{ mfd top}} and {{ mfd bottom}}. I would also be ok with converting to a CFD/RFD style system, where each discussion is only a section on the daily log page, instead of its own separate page. That wouldn't be my first choice, though I haven't been able to articulate why I prefer having each discussion on its own page, though. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Ideas, anybody?-- Aervanath ( talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A subpage of mine was nominated for deletion without my ever being notified of it. I don't think this is a good idea. If the nominator does not notify the user he is nominating a subpage for deletion, can a bot be run to automate this? Chubbles ( talk) 15:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be okay if, as part of the automation process, I did away with the "Closed Discussions" section and merged it with the archive page? This will keep things more organized for the bot, especially since the bot won't be touching discussions that have been closed for less than three days. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Okay, so what if the collapse looked like this:
Blah blah blah
Would that work? → ROUX ₪ 07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not think anything involving ParserFunctions and the FULLPAGENAME being equal to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion will get the job done. Just now I thought of an idea, and I will see if it is worth implementing. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 01:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My bot is able to identify MfD debates that have been closed for one day (I lowered it from three days), but it cannot properly archive them. After I get that working, you will be able to tell. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The script worked successfully. Please take a look at WP:MFD, the June archive, the July archive, and tell me if you are pleased with the results. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the above section, I have implemented the code. Now to run the script again. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
For folks that are interested in closes. I posted a question about adding a close date and time to XfD items: posted at: XfD thread — Ched : ? 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In line with my now standard arguments for blanking/redirecting in preference to listing at MfD for many abandoned or otherwise uncontroversial userspace pages, arguments which often are not disputed and even form the consensus conclusion, I have modified userpage guidance at Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting.2C_or_otherwise_fixing.2C_other_users.27_userpages_and_subpages. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate Talk:Huperprogeny and Talk:Huperson for deletion. Clear vandalism, but did you see that there was a "Huperprogeny" section on [www.bjaodn.org/wiki/Main_Page]? Even clearer vandalism. -- 220.255.7.156 ( talk) 06:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we "noindex" MfD? Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
A user page and the talk page are listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the discussion is still active. The user removed the MfD templates from his user page and his talkpage, and I restored them. Then I began to wonder if it was appropriate to restore the templates. On the English Wikipedia, I understand that the general rule is that users are allowed to remove templates from their own user and talk pages. On the other hand, this is an ongoing matter and the templates are not only directed at the user but are also used to communicate with others that visit the pages.
If it's not Ok to remove it then the relevant pages should be updated (like Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments, warnings and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments). Sjö ( talk) 18:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The bot is now tasked with doing basic cleanup of the page. Removing excess carriage returns has been in mfdarchiver.php for a while, but now the bot enforces consistency in the arrangement of MFDs (namely, one carriage return after each transclusion, two carriage returns at the end of a date section) and empty sections are removed. This shows the changes in effect. @ harej 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
For primary User and User_talk pages, it often seems inappropriate to actually delete the pages. I wonder if we should actually start using something like pure wiki deletion for primary user pages (not subpages). We would need an exception to this for copyright violations, and maybe highly offensive material, but I'm not even sure about the latter.
In practice, I have been suggesting blanking when the user is inactive, and !voting delete otherwise. The only real reason I'm voting delete on active users is because we don't have an "official" blanking process which would give blanking the same weight as a deletion in terms of the user restoring the material against consensus. What do you all think? Gigs ( talk) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Articles in user space which haven't yet been put in to the article space need to be deleted. There should be a user-page type prod method which gives the user 31 days to either move the article in to article space, or if it has been previously been deleted list it at WP:DRV. This would save lots of pointless listings at MFD and make it a much more easier job to deal with spam in user space.-- Otterathome ( talk) 12:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Are succession boxes put up for deletion through MfD or TfD? Either way, I don't see how to place a nomination tag on one. Help a brother out? Otto4711 ( talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
On occasion, an article or something equally inappropriate will get sent to MFD. While they are speedily closed, and rightfully so, they're still archived like every other MfD. I don't really think they're worth keeping around, so I propose that rather than closing misplaced MfD discussions, they are promptly deleted. @ harej 02:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, not trying to forum shop, I just thought that MfD regulars would want to comment on this idea: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposed_Criterion.2C_U5. My question is, how many "secret pages" come up for deletion here, is it the kind of thing that could be done quicker with less arguing? Irbisgreif ( talk) 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |