Misplaced Pages

talk:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:39, 25 June 2023 edit216.154.16.163 (talk) →Draft:Foster (2023 film): new sectionTag: 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 
(45 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|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 ]==
== More ] crap ==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== Discussion of redirects from draftspace to mainspace not from move==
] ] (]) 06:49, 20 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>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 19:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


== Relists not working anymore ==
:Sure. Ignore it. Also, IPs should log in, or register, or stay out of projectspace. ] (]) 07:29, 20 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)
== Okay, It's Apri1 1, but why does MfD have to be the clearing house? ==


== MFD request: ] ==
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)
{{atop
: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) | result = This post violates POINT. DNFTT ] ] 15:21, 21 September 2024 (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 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)

== ]==

Artical of this draft already exist:] there is no need to keep draft around. ] (]) 19:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

== More BFDI crap ==


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)
] (])


: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}}
], ] ] (]) 05:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


== Talk pages nominated for deletion ==
== Seeking guidance ==


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)
There are a number of drafts with the same issue that I believe are subject to deletion outside the usual guidelines of draft deletion. In each instance it's a case of ], and there has been no attempt to make the articles even remotely acceptable. They all either rely on one source (the generally unreliable Cage Match) or have no sources at all. The drafts are ], ], ], ], ] and ]. I believe they are being maintained to provide the users of a record of the title reigns and they have no intention of submitting the drafts for review. I think only one was actually submitted and it was declined. This should be done as a job lot but I don't know how to do that, and I don't have the time to nominate them one by one. ] (]) 05:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


== ] == == 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)
Please create a deletion discussion page for this draft. ] (]) 18:39, 25 June 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:

Archive
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)
The discussion above 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.

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)