Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edward Z. Yang (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 29 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk pages

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. - SimonP 02:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree completely. -Sean Curtin 23:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• 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. Uncle G 01:35:51, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • 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 Talk:Tybalt last June... not common, but it happens. -Sean Curtin 01:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just a note

We've done a little work in this area on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting. See Talk pages for deletion, User pages for deletion, Misplaced Pages pages for deletion, and the umbrella list Misplaced Pages-related pages for deletion, which also includes some items from article namespace.

Note that, at this writing, none of these lists are perfectly up to date. Feel free to help out! -- Visviva 04:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It's time

It's now 01:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC), so NFD is now officially active. I'm thinking about being bold and removing the header at the top of the page. --Titoxd 01:20, 29 August 2005 (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. -- Visviva 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. --Titoxd 01:32, 29 August 2005 (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? — Ambush Commander 01:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. I was partway through converting them all when you asked that question. Uncle G 02:37:38, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
• I've dropped a note on User:Uncle G'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. — Ambush Commander 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 Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion, where the dates are level-three headers. They are level-four headers because of the additional distinction, not made at CFD, between "Current" (Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/Current) and "Old" (Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/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"? Uncle G 02:37:38, 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. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 29 August 2005 (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 {{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 Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion. 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 Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/Current until it is closed, and not use Misplaced Pages:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/Old. However, that is something to be taken up on Misplaced Pages talk:Non-main namespace pages for deletion for a general audience to discuss. Please raise the question there. Uncle G 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. — Ambush Commander 02:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Still on V/PfD?

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)? Grutness...wha? 02:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)