Misplaced Pages

talk:Miscellany for deletion - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 03:36, 31 August 2005 (→"Wanted articles" list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:36, 31 August 2005 by Grutness (talk | contribs) (→"Wanted articles" list)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

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 User:R3m0t/Reports, for instance. 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. --ssd 05:49, 29 August 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)
  • 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)
    • 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 Special:Preferences and set them again. You'll find that the date headings magically change to your preferred date format. ☺ Uncle G 03:05:37, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
This was Uncle G's response on the talk page.
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)

  • 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for deletion is that editors want this to be a true page split. Uncle G 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. DES 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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". DES 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You aren't alone there. I pushed for Miscellaneous for Deletion 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. --Titoxd 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. Radiant_>|< 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. Grutness...wha? 09:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Grin... "no, you cannot vote against deletion here, this is votes for deletion." :) Radiant_>|< 11:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • :) And, of course, if it's truly miscellaneous, then there's bound to be some categories, a couple of templates... Grutness...wha? 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. Radiant_>|< 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. Grutness...wha? 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"... Shimgray 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)? Grutness...wha? 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 WP:PFD was that categories are also pages. I stand with miscellanei for now. Radiant_>|< 14:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Discussions about the future of things that don't fit anywhere else. Or WP:DAFT. That should do it. -Splash 17:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Wanted articles" list

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 Special:Allpages (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? Radiant_>|< 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. Grutness...wha? 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. Radiant_>|< 10:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

This is supervised by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, you should get their input. Personally, I don't see a reason to delete these lists, but blue link cleanup would be fine. -- Norvy (talk) 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 Category:Wikipedians by generation. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)