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 11:28, 10 January 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →Question regarding subpages: comment← 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.
]&nbsp;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)
*I've nominated some relatively unused anon user talk pages for speedy deletion in the past. In each instance, the only post to the page had been a note from an editor regarding an apparent experiment originating from that IP address, and there had been no other activity from that address or on that page for nearly a year. --] ] 18:18, 24 September 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>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</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? &mdash; <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. &mdash; <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. &#9786; ] 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. &mdash; <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)
**Mea culpa - I saw the headings in the contents lists, but didn't notice that the items under those headings simply said "discussion moved to NMNwhateverFD" ]...<font color=green><small>''] 01:38, 2 September 2005 (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)
: 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)
*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)
**Grin... "no, you cannot vote ''against'' deletion here, this is votes ''for'' deletion." :) ]]] 11:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
*<nowiki>:) </nowiki> And, of course, if it's ''truly'' miscellaneous, then there's bound to be some categories, a couple of templates... ]...<font color=green><small>''] 12:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
*Any objections to renaming this page '''asap''' before it gets any bigger? The longer we wait, the harder it gets. And NMMPFD isn't exactly catchy. "Miscellanei for deletion" might work, it's somewhat better imho to MIFD. ]]] 13:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
***Well, "Miscellaneous items for deletion" would still be MFD, in the same way that "Stub types for deletion" is SFD, so that point's fairly moot. But whatever, I think we're largely in agreement that the current name should go. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
**"Project pages for deletion"? It's what it is, really - pages limited solely to dealing with the project. Or "metapages for deletion"... ] 14:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
***Project pages makes it sould like they're all WikiProject pages, and Metapages makes it sould like they belon to MetaWiki. And since VFD seems to slowly be evolving into PFD, "Project pages" isn't going to make for useful acronyms either. What about "Non-article pages for deletion" (NFD)? Templates, stub types and categories aren't pages, so it would probably cover the right ground... or "Wikispace items for deletion" (WFD)? ]...<font color=green><small>''] 14:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
****Interesting discussion. "Project" and "Meta" are not good per Grutness. "Wikispace" is also not good, since this page ''also'' deals with Portal, Help and User namespaces. "Non-Article" is nice, but objection to ] was that categories are also pages. I stand with ''miscellanei'' for now. ]]] 14:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
*****If I'm correct (which I'm not sure) the correct term would be ] which still abbreviates as ]. --]<font color="#008000">]</font> 17:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*****"Other pages for deletion"? Shorter than "miscellaneous items", easily abbreviates to OFD... ] 15:13, 30 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)
]. Or ]. That should do it. -] 17:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
*Persoanllyu i find the current name massively ugly. I also dislike "Non-Article" an any other name that starts with "non-" or a simialr negative form. I liked "Miscellaneous items for deletion" or simply "Miscellaneous for deletion", but I like ] even better. (note that user pages are not project pages, and are suppoed to be in scope here. ] ] 15:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
**] reads best, I think. "Miscellany", while a perfectly cromulent word, doesn't trip off the tongue so easily. Or ]? ] ] 16:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
***I tried to take everyone's comments under consideration, and I moved it to "Miscellaneous deletion". I realize this is not parallel with all the other "... for deletion pages." If anyone wants to change it again, go for it, as long as the name is concise and reasonable. ] ] 06:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
****It parallels ]. ] 13:58:36, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
***Also, I'm not changing most of the links yet, I figured I'd let this marinate and see what people think. ] ] 06:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
****About any needed repairs -- I think I fixed the shortcuts last night. But I haven't done much other fixing yet. I figured I'd wait a day or so to see if there were any objections. If not, I hope to take care of most of that late tonight. ] ] 17:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


== "Wanted articles" list == == 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)
This seems like a reasonable place to ask it... Misplaced Pages namespace has quite a bunch of "lists of wanted articles" (e.g. Brittanica topics, basic topics, etc). I'm sure some of those have a point, but some others have been composed arbitrarily, and have been completed for 90% or more. It seems to me that there's little point in keeping a "list of articles that we used to want but have already been created", they are mildly misleading, and as an archive they serve little purpose that isn't duplicated by ] (barring some exceptions of course, such as the "list of topics each language should have an article for"). Opinions? Should I throw a bunch in here for deletion? Or who cares? ]]] 12:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
:I've often wondered why those lists don't have items removed as they're created. A bit pointless having lots of blue links on a page for red links (then again, they do paradoxically indicate "these items are listed so that we know not to list them"). Wouldn't it be better to dwindle the individual lists by removing the blue links - that way it'll be obvious when a page should be deleted, because it'll be empty. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 12:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
*I think it's quite reasonable to delete the lists that 1) nobody ever looks at, or 2) consist for 90% or more of bluelinks. But I'll wait some more opinions on that. Since there's literally dozens of them I'd prefer not to go through the bureaucracy for every single one though. ]]] 10:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is supervised by ], you should get their input. Personally, I don't see a reason to delete these lists, but blue link cleanup would be fine. -- ] ] 17:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

==Scope of page==
I have a question regarding the scope of this page. There have been several items in article space and category space which, if kept, should be moved to Wikispace. Should these go through the PfD and CfD pages, or brought here? An example is the recently deleted ]. ]...<font color=green><small>''] 03:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
: I'm speaking just for myself here, but I believe that if the offending page is a category, stub template, template, article or anything that has another deletion process defined already, it should go through that process, and then, moved to the Misplaced Pages: namespace. --]<font color="#008000">]</font> 03:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
*Yes. This is basically the catch-all deletion that governs everything not already governed by another process. Categories go on CFD, templates go on TFD. ]]] 10:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

== Suggestion ==
I think we should have a period of time in which nominations are only discussed, not voted on. This is important because many of the pages listed here require more thought than the usual vanity/non-notable article on VfD. It would allow people to consider more closely the purpose of pieces of policy and avoid a situation similar to the ]. If a page really needs to be deleted quickly, it can be moved to the main namespace and voted on at VfD. ] 01:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
*It's ''all'' discussion already. To repeat the mantra: '''It's Not About The Votes'''. ] 08:37:26, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
** Perhaps, however, we should explicitly discourage the use of bolded "keep" and "delete" comments. That might encourage people to take extra thought and to address the core arguments, counterarguments and facts rather than jumping to a conclusion in the first word. ] ] 15:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
***That would be an excellent idea if not for the fact that all our other deletion processes work that way. I'm certainly not averse to reorganizing that, but a better spot to start would probably be ] or ], both of which have more traffic than this page, and both of which address deeper issues than the existence of information (for instance, if something exists as both a template and a category, that may be perceived as redundancy - but neither CFD nor TFD will be able to get rid of a redundant part). ]]] 22:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

== Deleting failed policies ==

]. Proposal strongly failed. Why delete it? Why not keep it around as an archive? Isn't it customary never to delete good-faith policy proposals? ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 05:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
: A reasonable point. You should make it in the discussion thread on the ], not here. This Talk page is only for discussing the mechanics of the Miscellaneous Deletion process. ] ] 07:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
::I have done so, but I would like to discuss a blanket policy on whether or not failed policies can be deleted, and this talk page would seem to be the logical place for that. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 18:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
::: I strongly agree -- it is absolutely unacceptable to delete any policy proposal. A proposal is a proposal, subject to edit and improvement at any time. A proposal today labeled "failed" may be improved and elevated to "policy" over time. A case in point is ]. While I do not ''personally'' agree with its substance, the fact is that this has passed from "failed" to "guideline".
::: Neither Community nor Project interests are served by abrogation of ]. Policy is not subject to the tyranny of a vocal minority. I assert that this is not even subject to discussion: '''Policy proposals ''may not'' be deleted.'''
::: That said -- ] is not -- or at least, I did not write it as -- a policy proposal. Instead, it is merely informational -- and can be contested on the grounds that its information is flawed. Therefore, deletion process is not ''immediately invalid'' in this case -- it may be foolish, wrongheaded, senseless, without good object, and applied in ignorance and bad faith; but whatever deletion process flaws are involved, it is not a direct violation of the policy component of ].
::: The process of policy formation is the common property of the entire Community. It does not belong to any clique, cabal (There Is No Cabal), pressure group, or snot-nosed punk able to arouse six of his buddies at a moment's notice. Policy proposals are ''immune'' from any sort of deletion ''at all''. &mdash; ]]]] 18:50, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
::::I '''completely agree'''. There is no harm in allowing failed proposals to hang around, unless they're completely obscene or something like that - and I can't think of a single instance we've seen one of those. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 21:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
::: '''Agree''' with one caveat. We must still reserve the right to delete '''bad-'''faith proposals (after a deletion discussion to determine whether or not it really was a deliberately abusive proposal). We should also reserve the right to delete jokes. The clean-up after every April Fools Day is painful and labor-intensive. A joke is not as disruptive as a true bad-faith proposal but sometimes they do have negative consequences when they hang around and new users start to mistake them for truth. ] ] 12:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see we have this ]. Never mind. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

== WTF?/Looking for a name ==
This is like, the third move we've had! I know, '''be bold''' and all, but with this page jumping around like a rabbit, perhaps some discussion is in order first? &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 17:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
*There's no evidence that ] has read the discussion so far, and the elimination of User, Help:, MediaWiki:, and Portal: pages from the scope of this area had no and has no support in the discussions up until now, with (indeed) explicit objections to that raised in the ] discussion that split this page off in the first place and explicit objections to "Misplaced Pages namespace pages" pointed out by ] and ] above. So I've put everything back to ]. ] 18:28:55, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

:: This page has no mandate, no Community backing. It is in search of a mandate; thus, it is in search of a name. &mdash; ]]]] 18:52, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

:::So, are you saying there's no consensus on whether it should even exist? Hmm. Maybe. I think it should, though, because some things out of mainspace are just stupid without being CSDs, and it's best to keep this separate from VFD to avoid nasty argument. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 21:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
::::Xiong, that blanket statement is just plain wrong. The page has backing from the Misplaced Pages community, if not, there would have been an outpouring of objections to the moving of it. That wasn't the case. In fact, this page is a requirement for ] to be moved to ]. ]<font color="#008000">]</font> 07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

== Link trouble ==

] provides a link to the current day's log of links. It uses
<nowiki>{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Misplaced Pages:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}|action=edit}}</nowiki>
to create the link dynamically. Today, that results in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Miscellaneous_deletion/Log/2005-09-9&action=edit

However, ] includes
<nowiki>{{Misplaced Pages:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/2005-09-09}}</nowiki>
for today. I assume that this is also created automatically. Note that the day, being less than 10, is inconsistent in whether it uses a leading zero or not, and ] is separate from ].

They should be fixed. Which way the go, I care not, and this will only be an issue for the first 9 days of the month.

] 16:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

== Notes on closing discussions ==

I just tried to close some old discussions and had trouble navigating through the wiki-code to find the right pages. These notes should go in an instruction page somewhere. Haven't figured out where yet.

* If no nominations are made to a day-page, the day-page may be deleted as soon as the day is over.
* As with AFD, discussions run for a minimum of 5 days.
* Please close discussions following the ].
* When all discussions on the day-page have been closed, cut the day-page link from ].
* Paste the day-page link in the appropriate section of ].
** Be sure to switch the link from transclusion <nowiki>{{foo}} to regular link ]</nowiki>.

As I think about it more, the page I had trouble finding and which triggered this thought was ]. Given the low volume on this page, could we simplify the wiki-code and put the day-page links directly in ] rather than re-transcluding them? ] ] 23:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

== Useless? ==
What's the point in having this separate from AfD? There is like three pages proposed for deletion. So much for decreasing AfD traffic. ] 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
*Agreed. --] | ] 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
*Decreasing AFD traffic was not the primary reason for creating this area. See ], where the separation and the reasons for it were discussed at length. The fact that there ''are'' articles listed here shows that the answer to the question in the section heading is "No.". ] 00:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

== Procedure: huh? ==

Could someone please clarify the process to put up something for deletion? I've waded through pages and pages and pages of descriptions why NOT to put something up for deletion, and its still not clear to me HOW. Then i come across this page, which dryly notes: "Create its WFD subpage" and "Add a line to MD". Wtf does this mean?
For a newbie like me, these pages do little to clarify things, but rather throw me in such a maze of jargon that i almost (un-wikipedically) clicked everything away under the motto: "whatever". Only with considerable effort was i able to produce this lightly annoyed but nonetheless wholehearted attempt at constructive criticism.
Greets, --] 11:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

== M"f"D ==
Hi. Can we perhaps change this page name to "Miscellany for Deletion" - it would go with the flow of other deletion discussion page names. Cheers! ] ] 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
*No objection here (don't care either way, personally). Note that ] and {{tl|mfd}} already work. ]]] 00:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
**Good enough for me - I find it awkward to call it "MD" - too close to ]. ] ] 00:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

== Proposal for special "closed debate templates" for MfD ==

I have proposed special "closed debate templates" (as I call them) for MfD to replace the continued use of the AfD ones, even after the split from AfD. Miscellaneous pages are rarely articles, and ] uses a style similar to AfD but with a different color and wording custom to CfD -- a far lighter blue than the aqua of AfD/MfD. If created, they will be called <s>{{tl|mfdtop}}</s> {{tl|mfd top}} and <s>{{tl|mfdbottom}}</s> {{tl|mfd bottom}}, both indicating what they are (and what AfD-related template they will replace). I have a mockup of a test debate ]. I welcome any and all comments. ] | ] 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:By the way, I have mocks for ] and ] as just-created subpages of the mock for the moment, I'll move them and request deletion for the resulting redirect if good. ] | ] 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:: And I moved them, I'll now start using them. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 20:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Looks good... although the AfD versions still pop up here and there. --''']''' <big>] ]</big> 12:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

== Propose to simplify ==
Given the relatively light load on MFD, I propose that we simplify the page structure to match that of CFD/TFD/RFD/VFU. That is, we don't need a subpage for each nomination, and should simply discuss the matters on the main MFD page, with sections for days added as needed. It is rather pointless to have a bot create a daily empty page, and subpages with such names as "Misplaced Pages:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Terms of Use of images from PA Photos" are cumbersome at best. Any objections? ]]] 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
*Looks sensible to me, if the workload increases the format can be changed back. If no-one objects, in say 48 hours, just go for it. --] ] 22:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
*It makes life more difficult that way. I have moved two discussions from AFD to MFD within the last couple of days alone. With per-nomination sub-pages and a structure that is identical to that of AFD, that is a simple task, involving merely renaming the sub-page. Without per-nomination sub-pages, it is more difficult (and complicates the edit history of the discussion, too). ] 18:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
*Okay, that's a good point. However, maybe we won't need bot-generated daily subpages, and can just transclude all discussions onto the main MFD page? That would make cleaning out old entries easier, because you can just unlist them. ]]] 18:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
*I also prefer to keep the articles' subpages (I've moved a few from afd as well). Losing the daily subpages makes sense, though; it makes watching for new nominations easier, and I suspect it'll be a long time before there's enough traffic here that they're actually needed. &mdash;] ] 19:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
**I've subst'ed the daily subpages onto the main page. If there are problems, please let me know. ]]] 15:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

== old MediaWiki/MediaWiki talk pages ==

Before the template namespace was created, pages in the MediaWiki namespace were used for transclusion. However, these old MediaWiki pages are now obsolete and serve no purpose. Recently, a few administrators (including me) have been cleaning them out, but there's still a lot of the outdated pages remaining. Any other administrators want to help out? --] 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

== Transclusion of Front Matter ==

So in an effort to make this page slightly more manageable to edit, I've transferred the front matter of the page to ], which will make all edits to ''this'' page be more about dealing with actual MfD's, and also make looking at the edit window for this page a little cleaner. Cheers! ] <sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 04:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

== Archives ==

I took a ] pill and did some reworking of the Archives. I moved the individual month archives from, for example, ] to ]. I thought this seemed like a more logical and better sounding name. I also added the year to the 2005 archives since none of them had the year in their title. Then I moved ] to ], thereby moving the Archive into a subpage of MfD and also making all of the individual month archives a subpage of that, which has the advantage of putting a nice handly link to both MfD and the MfD Archive page on the archive subpages, which wasn't there in the same way before. Then I cleared out any inbound links to the redirects created by all the moves and deleted the redirects (except for one, that had some odd links coming in that I didn't feel like chasing down). Cheers! ] <sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:Good job! What was the redirect, I'll have a look at that if you want. ] ] 11:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::Oh it was one of the sub-month redirects, I'm not sure which. It's whichever one (or two) that I didn't delete. I'll look it up at some point if you don't feel industrious enough to find it, which is fine. Thanks, btw. ] <sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
:::The only one not redlinked on my watch list is ]. The links to that can be amended without problem. ] ] 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

==Mistake==

I accidentally placed a test message in a user's (]) page (blank) instead of the user's talk page. What should I do? Should I list it for deletion? Thanks and sorry for the mistake. ] 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:I have deleted the page. ] 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

== Proposed modification to MfD process. ==

Please provide comments on a proposed modification to the MfD process posted at ] ] 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

== Bulk submission of miscellany pages ==

I have recently been working on ] the Community Portal subpages. On that ] I have a list of all 50 subpages, of which more than 20 should be noncontroversialy deleted. Almost 20 more might be deleted, or might be worth keeping. How would I go about requesting 40 pages for deletion, because this would clog up the normal process? Maybe some people should just look at the pages, and comment here for an administrator? Thanks. -- ] 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


==Request==

Can someone please give me the discussion in which they discussed the deletion of ]'s page? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 6:48 Aug 8, 2006 UTC.</small>

:From what I can tell, it seems as if the page you linked to, ], was deleted because it was created in the wrong location. All pages about users start with User:. The userpage, ] was deleted and restored so that offensive remarks in its page history could be removed. --&nbsp;] 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I remember ] was marked for deletion not long ago, and I wanted to know if I could read the discussion about the deletion.
::That page was , from the deleted content it appears to have met speedy deletion ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== Informing the creators is being ignored ==
This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at ]. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. ] <small>]</small> 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

== My user page ==

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, but why is ] being considered for deletion under this category? Please let me know if this is a mistake or, if not, why exactly this particular user page should be deleted. ] 02:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

:Your userpage is not up for deletion, but ] is. This is transcluded on your userpage. --] <small>(])</small> 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::I just customized the MFD notice on that page with some include/noincludes to help clarify this during the discussion. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.] 03:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

== md1-inline now available ==

Pursuant to discussion on ] and some of the problems noted above, please note that {{tl|md1-inline}} is now available for userboxes in userspace (and related pages). This is directly analogous to the {{tl|tfd-inline}} that was used when they were in template space, and should be placed '''within''' the enclosing div of the userbox/template/etc. It can probably be substituted, but doesn't have to be, and will be easier to excise later if the page is kept if not. If it breaks, fix it or let me know. Cheers. -- '']']'' 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

==Question regarding subpages==
*] has a growing number of deleted articles as user subpages. No attempt has been made to improve these articles to get them back in the main namespace, so its kind of like using WP as a web host and its sorta like subpages masquerading as articles - so should they be deleted? ] 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
: If a reasonable period has gone by, they certainly may be nominated for deletion under the terms of ]. Those pages are only to be undeleted on a temporary basis and for specific purposes. Given the realities of people's external lives, I generally believe that the grace period should probably be measured in months but extenuating circumstances may apply (in both directions). ] <small>]</small> 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:*Ah, ok, thanks. I didn't know if there was policy regarding this or not. I don't intend on nominating them for deletion, at least at this point, I was just wondering if such material should be removed eventually rather than remain perpetual user subpages. ] 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:One possibility here is to ask the user to simply blank the pages. This keeps a copy of the article in the page history if they ever get around to improving it, but prevents the content showing up on search engines and the like. ] 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

== User page deletions ==

I haven't been overly active lately, so I'm probably not up on the latest news ... but what's with all of the user page violations? They used to be few and far between - usually only if it was some kind of attack page (prior to attack user pages becoming a CSD). If there something nerw that happened that has made unused user pages a hot thing to have deleted? ] 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:If the user accounts were created and never used, and have been dormant for several months, I see no reason in deleting them to keep the maximum number of usernames free for other users. I've always felt that some of the older sockpuppet blocked accounts ought to be deleted as well - I doubt their original owners would resurrect them. ] (Have a nice day!) 15:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::I don't disagree ... I'm just asking what prompted the current mass wave of deletion nominations - what suddenly made it an issue? ] 16:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I think that some enterprising people have just searched out user pages that may be deletable, and as MFD has jurisdiction of these, have brought them here. The !votes on these have been ~>90% deletes, and this encourages relisting. Is MFD a bit much for these, probally; but there is no CSD for them, and {{t1|prod}} only goes for articles...perhaps prod could be extended? — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Xaosflux, what about this, I took the design code from the prod template, change the colour to match the MfD templates and tweaked the wording:
<!--Code starts here -->
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="prod" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #D0ECDD; border: 1px solid #539570; text-align: left;">

It is proposed that this miscellaneous page be ''']'''{{#if: {{{concern|Give a reason here}}}|, because of the following concern:|.}}
:<b id="delete-reason">{{{concern|Give a reason here}}}</b>

If you can address this concern by ], ], ] or ] this page, '''please ''' and do so. You may remove this message if you improve this page, or if you otherwise object to deletion of this page for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the ] or on the ]. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

This page may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days.{{#if: 31|&nbsp;(This template was added: '''{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}'''.)|. Please check the article history to see when this template was added.}}
<!-- Articles proposed for deletion are listed on ]. -->

Please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving this page so that it is acceptable according to the ] and/or ].
<hr />
<span style="font-size:0.9em;" class="plainlinks">'''Nominator:''' Please consider notifying the of this page via their ] using:
:<tt>{&#123;subst:]|{{FULLPAGENAME}}&#125;} -- &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;</tt></span>
</div>
<!--Code ends here-->
::::It will probably need further tweaking in its wording but creating a prod for miscellaneous pages should be easy enough. --] <small>(])</small> 19:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Creating the template is the easy part, community consensus will need to be determined on a wide scale though for extending prod to other namesapces, I'd start on the prod talk, and link it to VP. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Done at: ]. --] <small>(])</small> 08:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
*In light of the above, and talk at ], PROD has now been extended to cover user pages if the user is inactive and has made no serious contribution to the encyclopedia. This should help reduce the load of clear-cut nominations here. (]) 10:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
**Woo hoo! Almost as good as extending the ]—maybe that's next? —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:Yay! The question is, are one of you admins going to change {{tl|dated prod}} to reflect this? ] 11:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

== Userpage ==

why is my ] deleted.why is my ] deleted. ]

:Check the deletion log, . The reason given by the user Steel359 was that both appeared to be being used as your own personal websites. See ] - <span style="font-family: Forte;"><big>]</big> <small>]</small></span> 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground ==

I tried to list ], but found "this article's entry" to be a valid link, as it has already survived a deletion attempt (). I don't understand why, as it seems to be an inflammatory version of ] and partially violates ], besides ] already exists to deal with the subject. Could anyone help finish the process? Thanks - <span style="font-family: Forte;"><big>]</big> <small>]</small></span> 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
*Done --] 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

==SNOWBALL KEEP==
I would like to ask an admin to close this discussion snowball keep: ]
Another political article, ] got a snowball keep and it had less people wanting to keep: 18 keep 6 delete, versus 28 keeps and 8 deletes with allegations. ] (]) 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
:Well, considering that this is the MFD talk page, not the AFD talk page, you may want to make your request on ]. ] 23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
::Thank BigDT. ] (]) 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== Users commeting on own MfDs ==

Does anyone else feel that users should not be able to comment on debates regarding their subpages or user pages? I would like to know others opinions regarding this. ''']]''' 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

:I would rather have them participate in the discussion with well-reasoned and insightful comments than wage a revert war or something else ]ish. I see no good reason to prevent them from participating. ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
: Agreed. As long as the discussions are polite and fact-based, there is no reason to prohibit the user from participating and can be very good reasons to encourage them to participate. ] is a separate problem. ] <small>]</small> 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

== MfDs of policy/guideline/essay and organisation pages ==

Looking at the discussions above, I see that ] showed support for the idea that '''deletion''' of policy pages and the pages of Misplaced Pages organisations with history should be deprecated in favour of a form of inactivation or historicalisation or archiving. I would add guidelines and essays in here as well. Organisations would mean WikiProjects and other Misplaced Pages namespace pages that have an active history. The idea is threefold: (1) That the history be preserved as a record; (2) That the history be preserved to avoid repetition of the same mistakes; (3) That policy pages be archived in case consensus changes in the future.

I am proposing that this be made much clearer on the MfD pages (where most of the deletions of this stuff is proposed). People should move away from voting '''delete''' to voting something like '''tag historical''' or '''inactivate''' or '''close down'''.

These considerations should apply to any Misplaced Pages namespace page. Outright deletion should be reserved for recent bad-faith ideas (this does not mean good-faith ideas gone wrong), patent nonsense, and the like. Anything with a history should be stuffed into an archive, instead of being deleted. Recent ideas that have potential can be userfied to allow development before returning to the Misplaced Pages namespace.

Please discuss this proposal below. ] 11:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

===Discussion===
*My arguments are given above. ] 11:24, 10 January 2007 (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)