| Revision as of 05:23, 21 May 2023 edit118.149.73.92 (talk)No edit summaryTag: New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:05, 9 December 2024 edit undoWaggers (talk | contribs)Administrators46,749 edits →Portal scope: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 90K | |maxarchivesize = 90K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 18 | ||
| |algo = old(45d) | |algo = old(45d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Tan}} | |archiveheader = {{Tan}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{old moves | |||
| {{old move | date = February 2011| from = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion | destination = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for discussion | result = not moved | link = Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 6#Requested move}} | |||
| |date1 = February 2011 | |||
| {{old move | date = May 2016| from = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion | destination = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for discussion | result = no consensus (not moved) | link = Special:PermaLink/725307752#Requested_move_28_May_2016}} | |||
| |from1 = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion | |||
| |destination1 = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for discussion | |||
| |result1 = not moved | |||
| |link1 = Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 6#Requested move | |||
| |date2 = May 2016 | |||
| |from2 = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion | |||
| |destination2 = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for discussion | |||
| |result2 = no consensus (not moved) | |||
| |link2 = Special:PermaLink/725307752#Requested_move_28_May_2016 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box|image=]|search=yes| | {{archive box|image=]|search=yes| | ||
| *]: Aug 2005 – Dec 2006 | *]: Aug 2005 – Dec 2006 | ||
| Line 28: | Line 38: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| == Should MfD be used to police thought in userspace? == | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| == Discussion of redirects from draftspace to mainspace not from move== | |||
| In the last year a number of userboxes, user sub-pages, userdrafts and even userpages have been brought before this forum for deletion, largely on the basis they violate some unwritten policy or guideline against unpopular or offensive thought (other policies and guidelines are often listed to attempt the desired end). These thoughts include, but are not limited to, ], ], ], neo-nazi, ], ], various religious and ] ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and even ]. My brief attempt to document the trend shouldn't be considered a complete or exhaustive list of episodes. Is this how we should use this forum, to remove divisive thought? I'm of the opinion that our guidance on this matter is insufficient. Ideas? ] (]) 16:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| A discussion has been initiated regarding redirects from the draftspace to the mainspace that are not the result of a move, as well as ]. Interested editors are welcome to comment at ]. <small>— ]<sup> (]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Relists not working anymore == | |||
| :I'd hardly call it "unwritten": | |||
| :* ]: | |||
| :** {{tq|there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy)}} | |||
| :** {{tq|Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: Polemical statements unrelated to Misplaced Pages, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).}} | |||
| :** {{tq|Traditionally, Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Misplaced Pages, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier.}} | |||
| :** {{tq|Handling inappropriate content If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion}} | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :** {{tq|Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.}} | |||
| :** {{tq|Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive.}} | |||
| :* ]: | |||
| :** {{tq|Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages.}} | |||
| :** {{tq|Therefore, content hosted on Misplaced Pages is not for: Opinion pieces}} | |||
| :** {{tq|Personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Misplaced Pages.}} | |||
| :** {{tq|Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech.}} | |||
| :* And the arguments presented in ] make a strong case that any expression of hate on Misplaced Pages, especially neo-Nazism and neo-Confederacy, is a violation of ] and subject to a block from editing. | |||
| :Having divisive content in userspace violates both the letter and the spirit of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Its preservation represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's purpose and an obstacle in our goal to build an encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. I condemn any defense of racism or hate on Misplaced Pages in the strongest possible terms, and I strongly discourage the defense of any other disruptive content in the name of ]. ] (]) 16:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's obvious that divisive content exists in userspace for several established users. As I mentioned before, {{noping|JRSpriggs}} got taken before MFD with content on his page that was considered divisive and, were it not for the full-throated defense of multiple established contributors who rightfully pointed out that we give established users more leeway in their userspace, probably would have indeed be considered technical policy violations. <s>But most users do not receive that same level of protection, and so if a very small number of users are decreeing what should or should not be allowed in userspace, then we have a situation where policy is not being evenhandedly applied to the entire spectrum of political viewpoints. This should be inherently problematic. </s>''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 19:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :It is a recurring problem and it needs to be addressed. <s>] is currently used at the whim of a handful of editors who have been very open about what political beliefs they disagree with. This is not what MFD is meant to be used for, usually for nominations that attract maybe 4 or 5 people total. An RFC is needed to establish objectively what is and is not allowable in userspace, and whether or not we should be granting latitude to users. </s>--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Procedural close''' as ] making. OP is using a grab-bag of unrelated MfDs they think are dumb to complain about how ] and that’s somehow bad. If you have a ''serious proposal'' and not a flamewar pilot light you can make it elsewhere. ] (]) 19:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is not a formal procedure, merely a discussion thread. You can't '''close''' this, ]. I have not formally requested comment. Bolded responses are not relevant to this free discussion. I have raised a serious question mildly concerning the integrity of Misplaced Pages (should we be policing userspace?) I have offered argument and evidence. Others have offered good clash. I very much appreciate the selection of policies and guidelines provided for the discussion by ] whom I thank. I believe a closer examination of the various chosen examples I provided may reveal something interesting. I'm happy to bring a wider more inclusive table of such processes if you wish, where close examination might prove quite illuminating. ] (]) 20:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I've observed here from time to time and seen a bit of what you refer to. You characterization may have some merit, but the thing to if you are concerned is watch the discussions here and offer your own opinions, based on relevant policies. Most of the garbage I have seen deleted is just that, garbage. Now I wouldn't say that there is true impartial consistency in how these rules are applied, but usually what gets deleted did violate the rules. There may be other material getting away with violating rules due to prevailing sentiments. Again, if you think so, watch here and contribute. ] (]) 20:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Regarding this discussion, I can only agree with what {{u|Thebiguglyalien}}, {{u|Dronebogus}} and {{u|DIYeditor}} said, and add this: No editor, regardless of how "established" they are, should be allowed to use their userspace (which ]) for content that is overtly unacceptable, and foreign to the spirit of this project. Various racist ideologies are the first and most important on that list. There can be no "acceptable" and "unacceptable" versions of racism. And there should be no fear that people with such worldview are going to be "offended" with our censorship, and turned away from the project. If they are unable to keep their inflammatory and divisive opinion for themselves, and contribute in a constructive way in their respective areas of interest, they shouldn't be here at all. Indeed, over the past year, I both saw and initiated various MfD discussions centered on removing racist and other similar unacceptable content, and I can only repeat DIYeditor's words – most of it was indeed garbage, and we shouldn't be concerned about keeping such garbage around here, as its totally useless and worthless for the goals of this project. — ] ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 21:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Without having read through this discussion (and indeed upon taking a look at it I realise that I am discussing something orthogonal to the point being made here – I'm meaning the general userspace policing of largely inoffensive stuff that seems to constitute half of the goings-on at MfD), I think that the greatest effect ragpicking like such has is to dissuade past editors from returning to the site by denigrating their work. Sure, it doesn't help the encyclopaedia, but the editors in question have helped the encyclopaedia and hopefully wish to keep contributing. To me, much of current practice is mean and of little use and should really simply be left alone. Because if you're not the editor who made it and put some effort into it, who cares? (Stupidly inflammatory stuff excepted of course, for anyone who happens to run across it might well have their day ruined.) ''']''' † <sup>]</sup> 09:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Deletion should be a last resort, keep should be the default. That's pretty much my take on it, overly simplified. ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 15:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I appreciate the input so far. I would naturally find the ] illustrative, because after almost a week of discussion, the nominator makes it clear abhorrent user thought is one component which provoked the nomination. Given the irregularity of the nomination and the (now undone) relisting, it appears ] felt very strongly the need to take action. This is commendable, and I don't want to make them out to be wrong, merely because they took WP:BOLD seriously. After editing as long as Sundostund, one's instincts have relevance and should be observed. ] (]) 17:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for appreciating my instincts; after editing here since 2010, I think that I've learned a thing or two about what should, and what shouldn't be done. My absolute red line, when it comes to deleting or keeping some material, is racism. The nomination mentioned above directly resulted from the character of the opinion piece in question, which is pro-Confederate in its core, and serves only for defence and relativization of the actions of the Confederacy – a rebel country founded on slavery and racism as its ]. Do we need something like that around here? In my mind, there is zero doubt about the need to nominate it, and delete it. That stands for any similar material as well. Of course, deletion should be additionally used to free the project from any kind of useless/worthless material, which has nothing to do with the project and improving it. Some people, who open their accounts here, should be reminded about several simple facts – the ] doesn't apply to Misplaced Pages, ], and ]. If they need some online venue to storage their opinion pieces, they can easily find one elsewhere, without misusing Misplaced Pages. — ] ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 21:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think of this as a controversial view, Sundostund, and we are not opponents. On the other hand, today I draw the line at red lines. I pray my understanding today is more inclusive than mine yesterday. In discussion I believe light is better than heat. I daily strive to reject (not ignore) red-hot issues which are used frequently to limit my knowledge and comprehension (or allow them to be so limited). This does not make me a saint; I hope it makes me an encyclopedist and a wikipedian. Knowledge of bad things is inevitable. Scrubbing what we know is short-sighted and a fool's errand, IMHO. ] (]) 20:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * I draw a very big distinction between responding to ongoing unacceptable behaviours, and the deletion of records of behaviours in the past that were not criticised as unacceptable at the time. On the first, MfD gets used, and may be well used, although sometime escalating warnings that might lead to blocks have been neglected. On the second, it crosses into ] of Misplaced Pages’s own history, and deletion of selected ugly things makes for an apparent distorted record of history. On the second, consider using {{tl|Userpage blanked}} in favour of renewing historical ugliness and censoring the available records of inactive and blocked old users. —] (]) 02:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Where do you draw the line between ongoing and historical? If someone posts an obscene, slur-laden, racist screed in their userspace arguing that certain ethnic groups shouldn't be allowed on Misplaced Pages, can they just wait a few months before it becomes "historical"? ] (]) 02:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Less than six months is not historical. Historical is more like ten years. If it’s been quiet for a long time, just blank it, and if it really is so bad that blanking is not sufficient it is probably ] worthy. Obscene slurs are not uncommon, they can be blanked, there is no value in running an MfD discussion on them. Screeders are better blocked and ]. | |||
| *::Any argument that any ethnic groups shouldn’t be allowed on Misplaced Pages is a completely different story, and I would welcome your listing of examples at MfD. ] (]) 07:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So would I. ] (]) 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think that's where we diverge then. Racist content in userspace ''always'' carries the message that certain groups aren't welcome on Misplaced Pages, whether explicitly or implicitly, intentionally or unintentionally. Likewise for any other divisive content. ] (]) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Seems something must've changed recently with how the bot relists discussions. There have now been multiple discussions relisted in the past few weeks, but these discussions are not moving to the Date which the relist occurred. Something is broken. ] (]) 03:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion request == | |||
| == MFD request: ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = This post violates POINT. DNFTT ] ] 15:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Reason: Does not meet GNG, no RS or secondary coverage. Multiple declined submissions. It should be noted that the series is directly related to "]", another YouTube series of the same genre that has been repeatedly submitted and declined multiple times and now page-created, for the exact same reasons. ] (]) 00:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :Done: ] ] <sup>]</sup> 00:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == More ] crap == | |||
| ] ] (]) 06:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure. Ignore it. Also, IPs should log in, or register, or stay out of projectspace. ] (]) 07:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Okay, It's Apri1 1, but why does MfD have to be the clearing house? == | |||
| The state of this Misplaced Pages space at 7am CDT is reprehensible and not acceptable even as a joke. ] (]) 11:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I fixed the markup error that caused almost all of MfD to be boldfaced... —] 12:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :You think this is bad? Look at AfD. ] (]) 14:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I hate being a debbie-downer, but yeah the effect wears off after 15(!) joke nominations. Like one or two that are actually creative, like ] from a couple years ago, is fine. However, when ''none'' of the 15 are funny, then it quickly becomes annoying, and in the case of this page, it is actively hampering the real nominations. ] (]) 22:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Agreed. This convention started out reasonable but gets more and more out of hand every year. ] ] 19:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Something broken? == | |||
| I've been trying to create a MFD discussion for ], but posting the initial <nowiki>{{mfd|1={{subst:Draft:Trish Leigh}}}}</nowiki> at the top of the draft seems to result in the entire article contents, rather than the link to the MFD discussion, being written into the template. Is something broken somewhere, or are the instructions wrong? ] (]) 18:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I believe this page was created in response to an onslaught of articles here related to BFDI or other shows inspired by it, however, this page is probably not needed any more, and may violate ]. I couldn't find any coverage of BFDI in news sources from when the page was written, but there is of BFDI now. While this news coverage is likely not enough to warrant a full article, the very nature of this essay is preventing an article on BFDI from ever being written. Maybe this should be a footnote in ], but to me, it just seems like an example of ] that will probably become invalid in the near-future and is preventing an article on BFDI from existing. ] (]) 12:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I could be wrong, but I think you're meant to paste literally "subst:FULLPAGENAME" without replacing FULLPAGENAME with the page name. You could probably also do "1=Draft:Trish Leigh" without the subst. ] (] / ]) 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes.—] 18:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Doh! I must have read the instructions at least five times, and still missed that. Thanks. ] (]) 18:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :That page will ''never'' be deleted. When the BFDI article is created it will be marked as historical with a note saying that, in spite of what the essay says, the article now exists. The essay does not prevent the creation of the BFDI article. It is unimportant and just a nice-to-have. It actually exists out of courtesy to you (yes, you), to help you understand the situation. What prevents the creation are technical barriers imposed by administrators, which are supported by consensus. They can be challenged at the ] forum by saying that the barriers should be removed because there is new evidence that it is possible to write an encyclopedia article on this topic. If you go there now and say that there is such evidence, you will need to show it. If you don't show it, the discussion will be summarily shut down. If you show only weak evidence, the same thing will happen. You will need to show strong and conclusive evidence. If editors agree with your assessment, a decision will be made to allow recreation, and the technical barrier will be torn down, and the BFDI article will be live again (once it is recreated). And as with any article, it will still be possible to delete it even then, by consensus. —] 13:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ]== | |||
| ::I know nothing about BFDI. My knowledge of the web series is almost non-existent other than a few clips I have seen floating around. I merely found it odd that there is an essay which consists of what would be an article (albeit an unsourced article) and then a ton of information related to why said article ''shouldn't'' exist. I perfectly understand ], and I am aware that an article about BFDI would likely be inappropriate at the current time. However, I was completely unaware of how contentious this topic was, and I apologize for making this request. ] (]) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Talk pages nominated for deletion == | |||
| Artical of this draft already exist:] there is no need to keep draft around. ] (]) 19:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Sometimes at ] we see talk pages nominated for deletion. When we see a talk page nominated for deletion, we should look very carefully at whether the nominator appears actually to be trying to nominate a talk page for deletion, for instance, to delete a record of discussion. Deleting a talk page is probably not in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If something was said that is so offensive that it should be removed from view, it is almost certainly better to ask an administrator to ] the offensive post rather than delete the talk page. However, when I have seen talk pages nominated for deletion, it has usually been good-faith user error, in that the user was looking at the talk page for an article, and then clicked the XFD tab in Twinkle. Twinkle then does what it is asked to do, and nominates the talk page for deletion, but the user meant to nominate the article for deletion. When we see a talk page nominated for deletion, we should ask the nominator if they were trying to nominate the article for deletion when viewing the talk page. These nominations are usually closed as '''Wrong Venue''', and we should ask the nominator whether they made a good-faith error. ] (]) 03:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == More BFDI crap == | |||
| == Portal scope == | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| I've started a discussion at ] about a proposal for a guideline to use empirical data to help determine whether a topic has sufficient scope to merit a portal. Please head over there for more detail and to join the discussion. ]] 10:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ], ] ] (]) 05:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:05, 9 December 2024
 | This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:Deletion process § Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues. Nickps (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of redirects from draftspace to mainspace not from move
A discussion has been initiated regarding redirects from the draftspace to the mainspace that are not the result of a move, as well as Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect. Interested editors are welcome to comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Drafts#Redirects from draftspace to the mainspace which are not the result of a move. — GodsyCONT) 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Relists not working anymore
Seems something must've changed recently with how the bot relists discussions. There have now been multiple discussions relisted in the past few weeks, but these discussions are not moving to the Date which the relist occurred. Something is broken. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
MFD request: Misplaced Pages:Why is BFDI not on Misplaced Pages?
This post violates POINT. DNFTT Star Mississippi 15:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe this page was created in response to an onslaught of articles here related to BFDI or other shows inspired by it, however, this page is probably not needed any more, and may violate WP:POINT. I couldn't find any coverage of BFDI in news sources from when the page was written, but there is some news coverage of BFDI now. While this news coverage is likely not enough to warrant a full article, the very nature of this essay is preventing an article on BFDI from ever being written. Maybe this should be a footnote in WP:GNG, but to me, it just seems like an example of WP:GNG that will probably become invalid in the near-future and is preventing an article on BFDI from existing. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- That page will never be deleted. When the BFDI article is created it will be marked as historical with a note saying that, in spite of what the essay says, the article now exists. The essay does not prevent the creation of the BFDI article. It is unimportant and just a nice-to-have. It actually exists out of courtesy to you (yes, you), to help you understand the situation. What prevents the creation are technical barriers imposed by administrators, which are supported by consensus. They can be challenged at the WP:Deletion review forum by saying that the barriers should be removed because there is new evidence that it is possible to write an encyclopedia article on this topic. If you go there now and say that there is such evidence, you will need to show it. If you don't show it, the discussion will be summarily shut down. If you show only weak evidence, the same thing will happen. You will need to show strong and conclusive evidence. If editors agree with your assessment, a decision will be made to allow recreation, and the technical barrier will be torn down, and the BFDI article will be live again (once it is recreated). And as with any article, it will still be possible to delete it even then, by consensus. —Alalch E. 13:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I know nothing about BFDI. My knowledge of the web series is almost non-existent other than a few clips I have seen floating around. I merely found it odd that there is an essay which consists of what would be an article (albeit an unsourced article) and then a ton of information related to why said article shouldn't exist. I perfectly understand WP:GNG, and I am aware that an article about BFDI would likely be inappropriate at the current time. However, I was completely unaware of how contentious this topic was, and I apologize for making this request. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Talk pages nominated for deletion
Sometimes at MFD we see talk pages nominated for deletion. When we see a talk page nominated for deletion, we should look very carefully at whether the nominator appears actually to be trying to nominate a talk page for deletion, for instance, to delete a record of discussion. Deleting a talk page is probably not in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If something was said that is so offensive that it should be removed from view, it is almost certainly better to ask an administrator to revision-delete the offensive post rather than delete the talk page. However, when I have seen talk pages nominated for deletion, it has usually been good-faith user error, in that the user was looking at the talk page for an article, and then clicked the XFD tab in Twinkle. Twinkle then does what it is asked to do, and nominates the talk page for deletion, but the user meant to nominate the article for deletion. When we see a talk page nominated for deletion, we should ask the nominator if they were trying to nominate the article for deletion when viewing the talk page. These nominations are usually closed as Wrong Venue, and we should ask the nominator whether they made a good-faith error. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Portal scope
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Portal_scope about a proposal for a guideline to use empirical data to help determine whether a topic has sufficient scope to merit a portal. Please head over there for more detail and to join the discussion. WaggersTALK 10:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)