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 06:07, 10 November 2023 editDIYeditor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,763 edits →Question about WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:STALE and WP:UP#NOTSUITED: 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 
(24 intermediate revisions by 16 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 ]==
== Seeking guidance ==
]&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==
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)
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)
: a response here would be much appreciated, please. ] (]) 11:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


== Horrible use of time travel == == 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. ] (]) 03:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
]


== MFD request: ] ==
] ] (]) 15:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
{{atop

| result = This post violates POINT. DNFTT ] ] 15:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
}}

Live Misplaced Pages article about this film already exists: ]; there is no need to keep this user page around. ] (]) 15:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

:This IP ha tagged two pages for MfD: ] and ] but did not create a nomination page for them. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 22:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
::Please create the discussion pages. ] (]) 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

== Shall we make a list? ==

Given ] about recent ] procedures I thought it valid to raise this question: A) Shouldn't we just make a list of unacceptable things a user might disclose about themselves? It's clear from recent procedures here there are concerns about the intent of various wikipedians who use infoboxes to describe themselves on their userpage. B) Would we intervene if the user merely wrote the same thing in plain text on their userpage? (ex. "I am a young adult") C) Why or why not?
#Nazis
#Neo-Confederates
#Homophobia
#Transphobia
#Anti-atheism
#Atheism
#I am a young adult
#
I'm sure there are many other potentially offensive things we might list so users recognize exactly where the boundaries exist on personal disclosure. ] (]) 11:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

:Exactly.
:On the first four, free text on a userpage probably will tend more to a reasonable statement in the user’s academic interest in that topic, and less to a mob slogan like Userboxes often resemble.
:5&6 is probably still too taboo for Misplaced Pages to make internal rules on.
:Number 7 is a newish new worry. A moral panic, just ] and silence them, lock them away, Misplaced Pages must not be a welcoming place for children? We have a very sensible looking policy at ], and excellent advice at ] and ], I don’t know why a couple of oversighters are getting ahead of policy, and trying to push policy in practice with vague reference to their special experiences (]).
:- ] (]) 03:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:Why is atheism controversial? <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 06:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why (in US politics, it's reason for a form of acceptable discrimination, IMHO). I'm merely describing the MfD process I've recently seen. Last week a ] which said "This user believes in the power of violence." The deletion rationale was the box could be construed as supporting violent action. There are some concepts which are clearly unacceptable for user pages as demonstrated by these nominations, and we're working our way through individual cases one by one. ] (]) 13:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:Also, I suspect you meant "userbox", not "infobox". <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 06:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::D'oh! ] (]) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
It appears that some users think people ]. Win. ] (]) 01:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

== Request: ] again ==


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)
This is a request: Same reason as ]. The topic will never meet ], the draft focuses on a ] and the mainspace (]) has also been salted. Pure fancruft. ] (]) 20:01, 31 July 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)
== Article tagging for a project ==
::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 ==
I'm not sure where this should be brought up but ] seems a bit irregular, the tag is visible on articles but maybe it should be applied to talkpages instead? The project itself seems to be a proposal, not an active project, so I can't post this same message to the project talkpage (yet). ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 16:15, 28 September 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)
== Question about ], ] and ] ==


== Portal scope ==
I'm a bit confused about the interpretation of these. FAKEARTICLE says if it is looks like an article it might be deleted, but STALE says a user draft can be left indefinitely. Can a draft article be left indefinitely at a users top user page rather than a subpage? For example {{tq|User space drafts prevented from being moved to the main space only because of the GNG are not to be kept indefinitely.}} There seems to be a lot of conflicting information between these rules.


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)
An additional and related question, NOTSUITED says templates intended for articles should not be used, does this include navigation templates for topics intended to be included in articles ("Part of a series on...")? Seems like it would. Does this also get into FAKEARTICLE territory if the user page and spammed with such navigation templates? ] (]) 06:07, 10 November 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)