| Revision as of 09:10, 29 August 2005 editGrutness (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators316,184 edits →Name of this page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:05, 9 December 2024 edit undoWaggers (talk | contribs)Administrators46,749 edits →Portal scope: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| ==Talk pages== | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 90K | |||
| This page looks like it is off to a good start. One element I do disagree with the proposed outline on are talk pages. While in my time here I can't ever remember a talk page being nominated for deletion, it seems logical that such a nomination would go here, rather than at AfD. Talk page deletions are very unusual, and like the deletion of user or policy page, should only be nominated when there is a blatant breech of policy. As with the other pages that will be listed here the article deletion policy gives little guidance on when and why talk pages should be deleted, and talk pages thus similarly require special procedures. - ] 02:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| |counter = 18 | |||
| *I agree completely. -] 23:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| |algo = old(45d) | |||
| *Since I too cannot remember a talk page being nominated (speedy deletion or simple blanking being the more common routes taken) I think that it really doesn't matter much either way. As such, I've changed it, but I would be surprised if the issue were to actually arise. ] 01:35:51, 2005-08-29 (UTC) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| **I'm sure people said the same thing about WP: namespace pages in the early days of VfD. Better to be explicit now than to leave things up in the air when the issue comes up. Looking for VfDed talk pages... there was ] last June... not common, but it happens. -] 01:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Tan}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{old moves | |||
| |date1 = February 2011 | |||
| |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| | |||
| *]: Aug 2005 – Dec 2006 | |||
| *]: Jan 2007 – Dec 2007 | |||
| *]: Jan 2008 – Sep 2008 | |||
| *]: Oct 2008 – Sep 2009 | |||
| *]: Oct 2009 – Dec 2010 | |||
| *]: Jan 2011 – Dec 2011 | |||
| *]: Jan 2012 – Dec 2012 | |||
| *]: Jan 2013 – Dec 2013 | |||
| *]: Jan 2014 – Mar 2016 | |||
| *]: Mar 2016 – May 2016 | |||
| *]: May 2016 – Jul 2017 | |||
| *]: Jul 2017 – Jan 2018 | |||
| *]: Mar 2018 – Apr 2018 | |||
| *]: May 2018 – Jun 2018 | |||
| *]: Jun 2018 – Jul 2018 | |||
| *]: Oct 2018 – Sep 2019 | |||
| *]: Sep 2019 – | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| I'm not sure I understand the point here. Talk pages are usually connected to a real page. Frequently, those real pages are deleted, and the talk page is left behind. Sometimes this is intentional, other times is is an accident, and the talk page really should be deleted. See ], for instance. | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| What subset of the pages listed there should be deleted? In many cases, I think it is extremely important that these orphaned talk pages be deleted, as keeping them causes confusion if a new page is created, and it is unclear that the old talk page refers to a now deleted page rather than the current one. Other times, it is obvious, and nothing need be done. --] 05:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion of redirects from draftspace to mainspace not from move== | |||
| == Just a note == | |||
| 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 == | |||
| We've done a little work in this area on ]. See ], ], ], and the umbrella list ], which also includes some items from article namespace. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Note that, at this writing, none of these lists are perfectly up to date. Feel free to ] -- ] 04:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == MFD request: ] == | |||
| == It's time == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| It's now 01:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC), so NFD is now officially active. I'm thinking about being ] and removing the header at the top of the page. --]<font color="#008000">]</font> 01:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| | result = This post violates POINT. DNFTT ] ] 15:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This appears to be going forward as a fait accompli, but for the record I really think that more time should have been allowed for reflection. This page is a '''Bad Idea'''. -- ] 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :: I don't think so. It removes VFD (AFD) clutter, and it clearly says near the top, "check if your nomination belongs here" in my words. Any really controversial discussion will find its way to the Village Pump, RfC, or other mechanisms, so it won't be a "backwater" as it's been described. At least that's what I think and believe in. --]<font color="#008000">]</font> 01:32, 29 August 2005 (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) | |||
| == Header standardization == | |||
| Is there any particular reason why date headers are four levels deep while some of the headers for the actual articles are three levels deep? — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 01:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes. I was partway through converting them all when you asked that question. ] 02:37:38, 2005-08-29 (UTC) | |||
| *I've dropped a note on ]'s talk page, but I believe that we should stick with the format of VfDs and keep dates level two headers (which means we zap the Discussions/Current headers and make Older it's own header). Keeping the format the same is important for ensuring compatibility between deletion procedures. And besides: level 5 headers look really strange. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 02:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Having the dates as level-two headers only works for VFD because it ''doesn't'' transclude the per-day pages. This page is more like ], where the dates are level-three headers. They are level-four headers because of the additional distinction, not made at CFD, between "Current" (]) and "Old" (]) discussions. That was carried over from VFD. If we are prepared to do away with "Old", we can promote the date headers to level-three headers, as per CFD. So the question becomes, do we want "Old"? ] 02:37:38, 2005-08-29 (UTC) | |||
| ***I should point out that I'm in favour of not using "Old". DELBOT, editing under the aegis of {{user|Uncle G's 'bot}}, is currently adding each new day to ]. If we decide not to have "Old", but to simply leave everything on "Current" until the whole day's discussions are closed, then I don't actually have to change DELBOT. I was going to look into making it update "Old". But without "Old" the system becomes simple: DELBOT adds the per-day pages for each new day; closers remove them when a day's discussions are fully dealt with. ] 03:05:37, 2005-08-29 (UTC) | |||
| *Also, is there any reason for the (IMO) extremely ugly all-numeral dates? August 28, 28 August, 28th August - any of those, fine, but 2005-08-28 looks bad, as far as I;'m concerned. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 02:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **You're suffering from the same problem that I had when the upgrade to MediaWiki version 1.5 happened. Your date preferences have become reset to "no preference". Go to ] and set them again. You'll find that the date headings magically change to your preferred date format. ☺ ] 03:05:37, 2005-08-29 (UTC) | |||
| :This was Uncle G's response on the talk page. | |||
| *I reverted you because ''I was three quarters of the way through converting all of the headers'' when you started undoing all that I had carefully done over the past two days. Nominations will use {{tl|nfd2}}, which already has the correct header level. And separation into "Current" and "Old" discussions parallels the existing identical separation that can be found on ]. Whether we want an "Old" section at all depends from how closers are going to manage old discussions. They could decide just to keep everything listed in ] until it is closed, and not use ]. However, that is something to be taken up on ] for a general audience to discuss. Please raise the question there. ] 02:30:49, 2005-08-29 (UTC) | |||
| ::After taking a look at the templates, all of that appears to be in good order. I admit, some of my arguments don't make sense now. Here are my reasons: | |||
| ::* Maintain uniformity with VfD - VfD has been using level two headers for dates since the beginning of time (or at least for as long as I can remember). Other pages are unclear: TfD uses level 3, IfD uses 2, Cfd uses 3 and SfD uses 3. At the very least, use level 3 headers, but since VfD is by far the most streamlined (yes, it is) and frequently extension, this page should emulate VfD | |||
| ::* Stylistic concerns - By the time you get up to level 5 headings, most browsers render it as bold hyperlinked text. This does not imply "heading" | |||
| ::* Do it early, before it's too late - We've just added a new *fD page. Let's make sure it conforms before it's too late. | |||
| ::Here is my response to his new response (I got delayed due to some bug) | |||
| ::There is no need to have headers to have extra baggage. The hierarchy usually is IfD > Date > Article. There's nothing wrong with having Dates the same level headings as the other "meta" sections of the document: IfD does it. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 02:48, August 29, 2005 (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) | |||
| ==Still on V/PfD?== | |||
| ::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) | |||
| I note that the entries currently on NFd are all still on the VfD pages - is NFD going to become completely separate, or will they stay there (like they do on the deletion sorting-by-topic pages)? ]...<font color=green><small>''] 02:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *They ''aren't'' listed on VFD any more. I've just spent two hours removing the ones that remained, boldly moving them here as indicated on Saturday. The VFD listings have been reduced to pointers to here. My understanding of the discussion at ] is that editors want this to be a true page split. ] 02:53:28, 2005-08-29 (UTC) | |||
| *Some do, some don't. I don't think there is consensus yet, and i think going live with this page before there is a clear consensus on both whehter to create it at all, qand what it should be called, is a major mistake. ] ] 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk pages nominated for deletion == | |||
| ==Name of this page== | |||
| I for one very much dislike the name "Non-main namespace pages for deletion". I would prefer "Misplaced Pages pages for deletion" or "Misc pages for deletion". ] ] 03:39, 29 August 2005 (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) | |||
| : You aren't alone there. I pushed for ] but it seems we settled on this name for now. I imagine it can always be changed, and it isn't THAT big of a deal. --]<font color="#008000">]</font> 05:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I concur with "Miscellaneous for deletoin". "Misplaced Pages pages for deletion" is not a good idea since this process also governs Help and Portal pages. ]]] 08:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Portal scope == | |||
| *Pedant that I am, I prefer "Miscellaneous items for deletion" - miscellaneous is an adjective, not a noun. But the current page name is combersome, to say the least. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 09:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
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)