Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →Request: reply
Line 200: Line 200:


:From what I can tell, it seems as if the page you linked to, [[Clan rHrN]], was deleted because it was created in the wrong location. All pages about users start with User:. The userpage, [[User:Clan rHrN]] was deleted and restored so that offensive remarks in its page history could be removed. -- [[User:Kenb215|kenb215]] 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:From what I can tell, it seems as if the page you linked to, [[Clan rHrN]], was deleted because it was created in the wrong location. All pages about users start with User:. The userpage, [[User:Clan rHrN]] was deleted and restored so that offensive remarks in its page history could be removed. -- [[User:Kenb215|kenb215]] 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I remember [[User: Clan rHrN]] was marked for deletion not long ago, and I wanted to know if I could read the discussion about the deletion.

Revision as of 02:09, 9 August 2006

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)[reply]

  • 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. -- BD2412 talk 18:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

We've done a little work in this area on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. See Talk pages for deletion, User pages for deletion, Wikipedia pages for deletion, and the umbrella list Wikipedia-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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(Talk) 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(Talk) 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 Wikipedia: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" (Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/Current) and "Old" (Wikipedia: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)
      • I should point out that I'm in favour of not using "Old". DELBOT, editing under the aegis of Uncle G's 'bot (talk · contribs), is currently adding each new day to Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Log/Current. 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. Uncle G 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. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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(Talk) 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)[reply]

  • 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 Wikipedia 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 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this page

I for one very much dislike the name "Non-main namespace pages for deletion". I would prefer "Wikipedia pages for deletion" or "Misc pages for deletion". DES (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • I concur with "Miscellaneous for deletoin". "Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

"Wanted articles" list

This seems like a reasonable place to ask it... Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: namespace. --Titoxd 03:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Radiant_>|< 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 Asch conformity experiment. If a page really needs to be deleted quickly, it can be moved to the main namespace and voted on at VfD. Vacuum c 01:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's all discussion already. To repeat the mantra: It's Not About The Votes. Uncle G 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. Rossami (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 WP:CFD or WP:TFD, 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). Radiant_>|< 22:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting failed policies

Wikipedia:Zap. 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? ~~ N (t/c) 05:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable point. You should make it in the discussion thread on the project page, not here. This Talk page is only for discussing the mechanics of the Miscellaneous Deletion process. Rossami (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~~ N (t/c) 18:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. 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 The Wiki Way. 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 -- Zap 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 Wiki Way.
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. — Xiong熊talk* 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. ~~ N (t/c) 21:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Rossami (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see we have this here. Never mind. ~~ N (t/c) 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • There's no evidence that Neutrality 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 Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion discussion that split this page off in the first place and explicit objections to "Wikipedia namespace pages" pointed out by Radiant! and Grutness above. So I've put everything back to Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion. Uncle G 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. — Xiong熊talk* 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. ~~ N (t/c) 21:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Xiong, that blanket statement is just plain wrong. The page has backing from the Wikipedia 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 Votes for Deletion to be moved to Articles for Deletion. Titoxd 07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion#The How to list pages for deletion provides a link to the current day's log of links. It uses 

{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}|action=edit}}

to create the link dynamically. Today, that results in http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellaneous_deletion/Log/2005-09-9&action=edit

However, Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion includes 

{{Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/2005-09-09}}

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 Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/2005-09-9 is separate from Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/2005-09-09.

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.

Al 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.

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

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.  Grue  18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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, --The Minister of War 11:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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!  BD2412 talk 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 CfD 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 {{mfdtop}} {{mfd top}} and {{mfdbottom}} {{mfd bottom}}, both indicating what they are (and what AfD-related template they will replace). I have a mockup of a test debate here. I welcome any and all comments. Wcquidditch | Talk 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have mocks for mfd top and mfd bottom as just-created subpages of the mock for the moment, I'll move them and request deletion for the resulting redirect if good. Wcquidditch | Talk 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I moved them, I'll now start using them. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good... although the AfD versions still pop up here and there. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 "Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Terms of Use of images from PA Photos" are cumbersome at best. Any objections? Radiant_>|< 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. --Doc ask? 22:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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). Uncle G 18:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Radiant_>|< 18:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. —Cryptic (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Ixfd64 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter, 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! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

I took a Be Bold pill and did some reworking of the Archives. I moved the individual month archives from, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archive debates/March 2006 to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/March 2006. 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 Wikipedia:Archived miscellany delete debates to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates, 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! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! What was the redirect, I'll have a look at that if you want. Steve block talk 11:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only one not redlinked on my watch list is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archive debates/December. The links to that can be amended without problem. Steve block talk 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

I accidentally placed a test message in a user's (User:Nudimmud) 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. Afonso Silva 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the page. Eugene van der Pijll 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed modification to MfD process.

Please provide comments on a proposed modification to the MfD process posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia jurors. Folajimi 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk submission of miscellany pages

I have recently been working on cleaning up the Community Portal subpages. On that page 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. -- kenb215 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request

Can someone please give me the discussion in which they discussed the deletion of Clan rHrN's page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.122.163 (talk • contribs) 6:48 Aug 8, 2006 UTC.

From what I can tell, it seems as if the page you linked to, Clan rHrN, was deleted because it was created in the wrong location. All pages about users start with User:. The userpage, User:Clan rHrN was deleted and restored so that offensive remarks in its page history could be removed. -- kenb215 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I remember User: Clan rHrN was marked for deletion not long ago, and I wanted to know if I could read the discussion about the deletion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=68525460"