Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:25, 15 December 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion

There were over 20 pages on Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion that were not listed here. I've worked through the whole list, appears about 50% usual newbie listing errors, but the rest appear to be people listing via scripted processes that are broken. Any idea which scripts may be messed up now? — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

By eyeball it looks like a twinkle issue. Synergy 23:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It is. When you use twinkle to create an MfD, it doesn't transclude that MfD, to this page. So by checking the contribs of the initiator of the MfD you have recently placed on the main page, he never transcluded it here. Whoever works on twinkle would have to be notified about it. It would be the only way to fix it. Synergy 00:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it is a WP:TWINKLE issue fully. Part of the issue is something is going on with the date and time perfs overall. I have noticed over the last week or so my comments are all signed using server time - not local time. And if server time is the next day that the tags will show up for that day, and using via WP:TWINKLE will not auto create the date header. I just did an MfD and it was not listed here - so I added it in manually but than I noticed the date on my sig was tomorrows date. I checked my perfs to be sure amd they read correct. My guess is my sig for this post will show up incorrect as November 10 at 01:03 (or there about) and I am doing this by hand, no WP:TWINKLEinvolved. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Well it did show up CORRECTLY as Nov 10th at 01:03, as that is the time you made it. All enwiki times are in UTC, including the dates/times for mfd "days". Do you think the problem is that the script is reading the user's computer's local time and making the error there? — xaosflux Talk 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, local time was not "01:03, 10 November 2008" it was 5 hours earlier and November 9. The date/time may be "correct" for server time, but it is not the correct user time (unless, of course, the user lives in the server). That is what I am saying. A few weeks ago I did not see this problem as it is popping up now. And come to think of it we did have a time change recently and that is around the time this started happening. Maybe the server was reset and it reset the time? To answer the question you asked I think the script is not reading the local user time and it is posting based on the server time. To be clear if an editor is making a manual post they would create an entry under the correct date - say "November 11". But their sig might say "November 12" is that is the server time. Likewise using an automated tool such as Twinkle would read the server side scripts and try to post the entry under "November 12" which probably has not been created yet, as seems to be happening in the situation brought up by xaosflux and suggested by Synergy|ergy to be a Twinkle issue. Because the issue in not only an Twinkle issue someone needs to look at the core Wikipedia scripts as it is my understanding that Twinkle reads/takes information off the existing scripts. I will check with SchuminWeb and direct him over to this thread. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Signature timestamps using ~~~~ or ~~~~~ are always in UTC time. Since signatures are saved to pages in plain text, they aren't covered by the same preferences that adjust time and datestamps according to your local UTC offset, such as history pages, timestamps in signatures have to be standardized. For instance, say your local time zone is UTC+1 and my local time zone is UTC-1; your local time is 2 hours ahead of mine. If you post a message at noon (12:00PM) local time and I replied to the message 1 minute later, my local time would be 10:01AM. It wouldn't make sense to append the local timestamp to the message because then it would look as if I had posted my reply to your message exactly one hour and 59 minutes before you posted the message. The problem would be compounded by the fact that, for the most part, nobody has any idea what another user's local time is. Rather, all signature timestamps are standardized to UTC so that we're all talking on the same clock. Back to the issue at hand...xaosflux, can you provide me with some examples of Twinkle created MFDs that did not get automatically listed? Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to go back and dig some up...in response to Soundvisions1 though, is there a known issue that it will fail to post the mfd if the current date header is not there yet? If so that should be corrected to create the date header if !exist. — xaosflux Talk 00:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

← *Let me start over. A few weeks ago I never noticed any issues. Now I notice when I post it comes up +5 hours. I understand the concept of the UTC vs local time, I am just saying I did not notice it before and I think this is the overall issue. When using Twinkle, if the server time has flipped to the next day and the local time has not yet flipped over it will not post anything on the MfD pages because the new day has not been created yet. It seems to be that the main variation is that when doing an MfD it returns an error that it "can not find the page requested" whereas when tagging an AfD I have noticed that, at times, the message will be posted (Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.) will be a redlink. I did not equate this being a time/date "local Vs. server" issue until now. Server time is +5 from me I have figured out, so if I posted something at "19:01" local time it may fail if the next days page has not yet been created on the server. (EDIT - as it it now the "next day" on server time I tool a look and there is not a "November 12, 2008" header so any Twinkle created MfD's will be created right now but would not be posted under "November 12, 2008" as it does not yet exist. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so sounds like a Twinkle error...twinkle should not fail but notice that the current day header is missing and create it...this has less to do with tiem zones, having an EMPTY header should not be a prerequisite to making posting here; just like it is not for people doing it manually. — xaosflux Talk 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Having just created a new MfD with Twinkle, I noticed that it returned an error message saying that the date header was not found, so it did not create the entry on the main project page. I created it manually. Sounds like it could be fixed with a simple tweak to twinkle (if no date header, create date header...), but who to talk to about that? NJGW (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, do you think it is the same as Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#TW-B-196_.28open.29? — xaosflux Talk 03:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds the same... any reason the headings were changed in that edit? Maybe we should just change them back (or else someone that knows the js code and has access can go fix it there). NJGW (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The headings were ultimately changed back sometime between then and now, but I don't know specifically when. I poked around under the hood of twinklexfd.js and think that I may have found the problem. It seems that when Twinkle tries to add an MFD to the page when the current day's heading has already been created that everything works fine. However, it appears that the structure of WP:MFD has changed slightly since that part of twinklexfd.js was written. I identified a section of code that would always fail if Twinkle did not find the heading for the current day and (hopefully) fixed it. Please let me know on my talk page if this problem still occurs as I am going to unwatch this talk page at this point. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinon needed

Not sure if this should go to MfD or not. User:Wellus page that is somewhat set up like a personal web host with a personal photo album: User:Wellus/Photo which goes to: User:Wellus/Photo/2007. (EDIT: I just relzied the whole main page has links to subpage that are somewhat "bloggish" - User:Wellus/Philosophy, User:Wellus/Miscellaneous, User:Wellus/America) Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you talked to him? It does appear that he's violating WP:WEBHOST - he states that he has a Myspace, perhaps he would be willing to move the extraneous information to one of his off-wiki pages. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Left a message, although it seems they have not logged on in over a year. There is also an entire set of subpages that seems to be school work. Soundvisions1 (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox question

I stumbled across User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox and I see it has been there since January 27, 2007 and has been tagged {{in use}} since February 11, 2008. The last "work" was done February 12, 2008 and on September 12, 2008 the {{in use}} was "disable tag from userspace". The user who seemed to be doing the most work on it was blocked in April 2008 and unblocked the next day. The last post/edits by this user was to their user page on April 21 saying, first, "Now do you see why I quit?" and than expanding on that to read "Now do you see why I quit? These people are INSANE." So my question is does there/is there a need/reason keep this sandbox? (For further reference you can look at David Lovelace, the creator of RAB and whose article was created by Eric Barbour, as well as the Revision history of David Lovelace) I guess I could also ask if the user page is acceptable as well? Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Daily Logs?

I've been thinking for a while that we need daily logs. I know it would require changes to the way pages are listed and both the mfd and oldmfd tags worked but it would also:

1. make it much easier to go back over pages to see if they've been closed properly (I've noticed a lot of issues lately with pages not being closed completely.

2. obviate the need for moving closed discussions to the closed discussions section of the MFD page and then archiving them manually when a day is done; you'd simply leave them in their respective days in their closed status and then untransclude the day when it was complete.

3. days could be listed at MfD without full transclusion, only open days would be listed and when you accessed a day all discussions would be fully transcluded.

This is a combination of the discussion pages from TFD and what we have now, more like AFD is set up. Thoughts?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that is a good suggestion. No, there isn't a requirement for it, as things seem to be working as they are, but I think it would help, even if in the least. – Alex43223 T | C | E 11:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with deletion script?

I've noticed an issue with the default reason when I delete pages listed on MFD recently. Normally it would list the reason as:

  • Other
  • [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Some miscellaneous page]]

But several recently have read:

  • other
  • [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{#if:|{{{1]]

Any ideas what is causing this?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Userfication

Please voice your opinion on a proposed change to the "Userfication of deleted content" guideline. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it's not a guideline. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI - it does not say what it is actually. But it is linked from Wikipedia:User page, which is a guideline. I didn't think much about it really because it is worded as a guideline nor is it marked as an essay or a "how to" guide. Either way - more opinions still need as there is a section that was added, and is part of the proposal as well, about MfD. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

mfd tags

Are mfd tags supposed to stay in Wikipedia pages forever? Or should they get removed after awhile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The mfd tag should be removed once the discussion is closed. This usually happens after about five days. If an mfd tag was not removed after the mfd was closed, please notify the closer of the mfd discussion of the oversight. In some cases, the mfd tag is placed, but the actual discussion page is never created. If that is the case, the mfd tag can be removed immediately.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 08:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting mfd to have daily log pages

At the moment, maintaining this page is a real pain in the butt. I'm wondering if there are any objections to formatting MfD like WP:DRV, where each day is on a log page, and then the log pages are transcluded. Currently, each discussion is transcluded directly, requiring manual archiving, which is time-consuming. I've filed a bot request to get this automated, but if it doesn't happen, I'd like to take some other steps towards making this maintenance-friendly.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DRV may be maintenance friendly, but it is also highly user-unfriendly. DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In what way? I haven't found it so.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll object. I believe this has come up 2 or three times before, and has been rejected. There is already an MfDbot that I was going to handle since ST47 has given it up. I lost interest soon after that. Its really not difficult at all to do the manual archiving, and I'll resume updating if its that much of a problem. Synergy 17:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that DRV has its own issues, however, I think having a daily log page at MfD (rather than a separate page for every discussion) would be better. See how WP:CFD works, for example.

An excellent example of a comment that's likely to be overlooked in this format, but would be less likely to under CfD's format is NYB's at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/The Thadman.

In that case, perhaps having the the noms combined into a group nom might be helpful, but there are times (as is possibly true in this case) where nominating them separately due to concerns which may be unique to one or more pages may be more useful to the discussion achieving consensus.

And btw, I believe CfD has archiving bots as well. (Besides the daily log itself being a de facto archive.) I would presume that the bot owners would be happy to help set up whatever would be necessary. - jc37 23:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really like the way CFD is formatted. My suggestion for formatting like DRV was mostly based on the DRV practice of collapsing closed discussions, making it easier to find the open discussions. That's still a problem at CFD, and especially a problem at AfD. I like the current practice of each discussion having it's own page. I think this makes it much easier to find old discussions about a particular page, and I actually think CFD (and RFD) would be improved by adopting this aspect of it. I was mostly just bitching about the annoyance of maintaining the page. Maybe something more along the lines of an "if transcluded, then collapse" line of code in Template:mfd top, so that transclusions of closed discussions would be collapsed.--Aervanath (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether discussions are "collapsed", or not, has no effect on how the process itself is presented or carried out, I would presume?
As for "easier", the change of colour isn't an immediate indicator?
And, except for Afd, I'd like to see all XfD in daily log pages. For one thing, it helps provide context.
For example, it could show rather immediately if someone was nominating 30 pages which might have something in common that might not normally have been noticed.
And the context of the nominations would also be available historically. After all, would anyone want to go through all the AFDs of a certain day, checking timestamps, etc. in order to try to figure out what pages all happen to be up for deletion at a particular moment? It can be notated in archives, but it would make more sense to allow the discussions themselves to be the archives.
Would you expand upon why you feel that one page - one nom would be preferrable?
I honestly don't see any benefits but one: extreme length; if one or more discussions get very lengthy. But in those cases (which aren't common at CfD), those discussions are simply made into a subpage of that day's log. (Which means this allows for the single page benefit when needed, rather than having it for all, when it's not.) - jc37 08:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have never understood the reason for not handling MfD nominations by means of a daily log given that MfD rarely receives more than 10 nominations on any given day (compared with ~100/day for AfD) and few discussions become very long. All things considered, I find the one page-one nom format of MfD less user- and closer-friendly than the daily log format. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion

The template {{mfd}} and its cousin currently do not put the pages into Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion. I've left a note at the respective template talk. Something else currently populates the category with 51 userpages. i thought it might be due to User:Jw21/deUBdomain/notnarrow alt that had a wrong oldmfdfull tag, but fixing that didn't help.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas? I think we need to fix this.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Those pages will get removed from the category when the job queue catches up. If you want to speed it up you could null edit the pages. –xeno (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks I see that they are down to 44, but I may consider to do that. Still I am more concerned about the first part, namely the cat not being populated by regular MFDs. If you have an idea for that as well, you can follow-up at the thread at the template talk.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
already did. =] –xeno (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Has been fixed by now, and I am doing the dummy edits as may are on unmaintained user pages to have the category clean, assuming that any stray nominations during the last month are found in some other way.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

forking articles during MfD

I created the first deletion tag on a MfD (incorrectly) at 16:13, 26 February 2009.[1] 7 minutes later, at 16:19, 26 February 2009, THF forked the article.[2] Editors are not supposed to fork articles which are in MfD/Afd. User:THF knows better. He then attempted to create a second MfD within the first.[3] I moved these comments to the talk page.[4] Ikip (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you can raise this dishonest misrepresentation about an edit conflict on a fourth or fifth page, since you seem intent on violating WP:MULTI? THF (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:CSD. Stop the wholesale Deletion of the Usepages of Indefinitely Blocked Users

I have started a thread to Stop the wholesale Deletion of the Usepages of Indefinitely Blocked Users at WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For information, there is a current discussion referencing the previous ones at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages. Toliar (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Extension to seven days

Given that Afd has been extended to seven days, see Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days, does anyone object to lengthening the term here to seven days, due to the same reasons?--Aervanath (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there've been no objections, I've implemented the change.--Aervanath (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Should disambiguation pages be brought to AFD, MFD, or RFD? (or a new venue)

I think there's sufficiently few instances that a new venue need not be created, but I do think we should provide some guidance on where to list disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. Please provide your thoughts here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. –xeno talk 16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Closing MfD by blocked editor who used MFD as a continution of an edit war

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) who has now been blocked for 9 days for edit warring, had reverted three editors on the page 4 times. [5][6] [7] [8]

Less than two hours later, he put the entire project up for deletion, as his final act of edit warring.[9]

See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)

Since this MFD is simply a continuation of the edit warring, can this MFD be closed? Editors can open a new MFD if they wish. Is that possible? Ikip (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point - I don't see the point in this, to be honest. The MFD is already in full swing. –xeno talk 18:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
There isn't a single policy extent that would support shutting down a process because the nom was later blocked for edit warring, and to do so now would be a very unfortunate encouragement to attacking nominators rather than focusing on content. The MfD is almost guaranteed to close as "keep" or "no consensus" at this point, but it should run so that views are expressed and, hopefully, the criticisms made by a number of editors beyond the currently blocked nominator, will be taken on board and lead to some improvements. I note the last MFD on this, from last summer, had not a single call for deletion or "reform" and even the evil, evil "blocked one" argued keep then. [10]. There's at least the indication of a trend in views on this, and at minimum that should be recorded and provide food for thought.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
On my request an admin shut down two AFDs by an indefinetly blocked editor just last week.
Bali this nominator made the project editors comments and behavior central to his MfD nomination, so it is very disingenuous to support this booted editor and criticize me when I comment on the nominator's behavior in return. Ikip (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"Disingenous to support this booted editor tktktk." What? I haven't "supported" anything or anyone but my own views in this. And yet, here you are, calling my actions "disingenuous." I yam what I yam, but disingenuous? I'm not direct, straight-forward and candid in my views? It isn't at all possible that i (and others) have honest concerns (reject them or not)? Focus on the issues at hand and not other editors, whatever your feud with Mr. Cash. And yes, an indef-blocked editor using a sockpuppet to get around the block is a far, far different thing than an editor in good standing making a nom and then later getting blocked for edit warring. If you don't see the difference already, i understand i won't be able to convince you.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your comparison between a temporarily-blocked admin and an indefinitely-blocked sockpuppet of a banned user is suspect at best. Furthermore, this MFD has been in progress for longer than your example. –xeno talk 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

xeno, this is simply the closest example I had. I don't know if this is even possible, that is why I came here.

Bali, you continue to defend AMIB by stating WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR but you repeatedly ignore that in AMIB's own MFD nomniation mentioned several behavioral issues. So AMIB is free to talk about behavioral issues (because he supports your stance), but other editors cannot?

This is what is disingenuous. Ikip (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear -- that he has since been blocked is completely irrelevant to that MfD and my opinions expressed there, and here. I have absolutely zero opinion on his edit warring block. I haven't looked into it and don't much care. If the block was bad, he'll get unblocked; if it was good, he'll have to take his medicine. Now, don't call me "disingeous"(sic) again (at least settle on a consistent spelling for it). You're now attacking me. Yes, I happen to broadly agree with amib that the ars is bad for wikipedia. Well, so what? Don't like my arguments? Disagree/refute/whatever. But desist in attacking me and otherwise seeking to personalize all of your content and policy disagreements.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
From the AFDs in the past, I see you always need the last word. So be it. Stop demanding one standard from one party, while excusing another. Again: AMIB is free to talk about behavioral issues (because he supports your stance), but other editors cannot? Ikip (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Coment The initial point was that the entire MfD was a bad faith nomination of a temp-blocked incivil admin, initiated because he was unable to get his own way and so acted against consensus and guideline by initiating edit wars and violating 3RR. The nominator himself then opened the door to questioning the motives of individual editors with his opening summary, which itself violated WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL by impuning the integrity of ALL contributors of the ARS. The nominator's continued edit war with a very few members of the ARS and his disagreements with the guideline interpretations of those few is what culminated in this 4th MfD of the entire ARS. Since that "standard of attack" had been therein set, and seemingly accepted by many commenting, it is only WP:common sense for all involved there to address all relevent and related issues, as the MfD has itself become the RfC sought by so many. For any to on one hand decry any such defense, but on the other hand not chastise the original attacker, is itself supportive (intended or not) of his pattern of poor behavior and may encourage such incivilty in the future. That said, I agree with User:Bali ultimate that the process has gone too far to be stopped. However, I also feel it is improper to insist that members must sit quietly by as others decide if (unneccessary) surgery is required, and if so how sharp the blade must be. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Sir Walter Raleigh was treated a tad more sharply than the ARS is being treated -- or than people are proposing to treat this real issue. I suspect that using a process instead of a squadron is a sound solution (per jclemens' proposals) while opposing any change is likely to result in more draconian results which would not be to anyone's benefit, and certainly not to WP's benefit. Collect (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Standardize closing template to go below header

I think this is one of the only xFD venues where the closure goes ABOVE the header, I'd suggest we standardize it so the closing template goes BELOW the header (unless there is some technical reason I haven't yet realized). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has trouble keeping straight which xF closing templates go above, and which go below, the header. –xeno talk 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Deletion process, the closing template goes above the header for XFD venues which use separate pages for each nomination (AfD and MfD). For deletion discussion venues which use daily log pages (CfD, DRV, RfD, SfD, TfD), the closing template goes below the header. I don't really know why that is the case, but if I had to guess, I'd say that it has something to do with archiving, bot indexing, and/or appearance (to minimize confusion about where a discussion stars when using the TOC to navigate). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. Seems reasonable, I suppose. And your explanation will help me remember. Thanks, –xenotalk 18:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Happy to have been of help. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping this page clean

This has come up every few months, and lately (especially with the 7-day discussion length) the page is really getting messy. Are there any suggestions for keeping this page in better order? Past suggestions have included:

  • Reformatting more like one of the other deletion forums, i.e. Afd, Rfd, Cfd, DRV, etc.
  • Getting a bot to auto-archive closed discussions

Anybody else have any good ideas? I think the current format works fine, it's just the maintenance which is a pain. So if anybody can get a bot or script that would take care of it, that would be nice. As I've stated in the past, I personally think DRV is formatted the most conveniently for a lower-traffic discussion page like this; every time a discussion is closed, it's surrounded by an auto-collapsing box which makes it really easy to scroll through the various discussions. Others haven't like that format so much, although I think it would be the easiest change to make, since the only thing we'd have to change would be {{mfd top}} and {{mfd bottom}}. I would also be ok with converting to a CFD/RFD style system, where each discussion is only a section on the daily log page, instead of its own separate page. That wouldn't be my first choice, though I haven't been able to articulate why I prefer having each discussion on its own page, though. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Ideas, anybody?--Aervanath (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • See above, I would like MFD standardized so the template goes beneath the header. –xenotalk 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Aervanath, who lives in the beautiful city in which I spent a week, left a message on my talk page asking if there is any way that I can expand my bot's influence on Wikipedia. I want to make it clear that any plans involving devolving deletion discussions to talk pages are out of the question. What I can do is have a template on the top of each active MFD sub-page that is removed upon closure. Once it is removed, it is removed from the active list of MFDs. This would work especially beautiful at AFD, since there already is a template in place that all active AFDs need. Any more things I need to account for? —harej (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering the length of the average MfD and how many are speedy-closed with only one or two comments, as well as the number of nominations made every day, I support switching to the daily log page format of DRV and CFD/RFD/TFD (depending on if we want collapsed or non-collapsed archiving of closed discussions). As I've stated before, I find the current "one nomination per page" format to be less user- and closer-friendly than the alternatives. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User subpages for deletion

A subpage of mine was nominated for deletion without my ever being notified of it. I don't think this is a good idea. If the nominator does not notify the user he is nominating a subpage for deletion, can a bot be run to automate this? Chubbles (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was the onus of the nominator to tell relevant people when he or she nominates pages for deletion? —harej (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If the nominator does not, I think the user whose page is being deleted should still be notified, as a matter of course. Everyone should be given the chance to defend his own user subpages from deletion. Chubbles (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's never been a requirement to notify the creator of an article of the deletion, although it's encouraged as a matter of courtesy. The reason it's not required is that it's assumed that if you care, you'll have the page on your watchlist. However, I agree with you that nominating a user's subpage for deletion without notifying the user involved is somewhat inappropriate; the first thing to do would be to discuss with the user in question, and see if the user will agree to modify or delete the pages. Any user can use {{db-u1}} to request deletions of articles in their own userspace, so a direct request to the user is much more straightforward than posting an MfD. If the two users can't come to an agreement, only then should it proceed to MfD.--Aervanath (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed Discussions section

Would it be okay if, as part of the automation process, I did away with the "Closed Discussions" section and merged it with the archive page? This will keep things more organized for the bot, especially since the bot won't be touching discussions that have been closed for less than three days. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • No objection. Three days sitting there closed, then move them to the searchable, nicely organised archives, is pretty good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't agree with the three-day waiting period. I can see SmokeyJoe's point that sometimes MfD's might need to be re-opened, etc, but that hasn't really been the practice up until now: when I'm clerking the page, I move closed discussions to the bottom of the page without paying attention to when it was closed, because I want to make it easier for people who are scrolling down the page to find the MfD's which are still open. For me, requesting bot action wasn't just about making the archival automatic, but about keeping the page tidy and easily-accessible. That said, maintenance is a big enough pain that I'm willing to forgo three days worth of "tidiness" to have the page archived automatically. However, I think a middle ground is possible: SmokeyJoe, what do you think about changing the mfd closure templates so that closed discussions collapse when transcluded on WP:MFD? (Similar to WP:DRV, except they would still be separate subpages; they would only collapse when transcluded.) That way, the pages can sit on the page for any arbitrary length of time after being closed, while still introducing the element of tidiness that I'm looking for. Thoughts?--Aervanath (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
That seems very smart. If I've got this correct, you'd like the closed templates to stay the same when looking at the /randomMfD subpage, but when looking at the main page only, they'd be collapsed? Should be highly trivial to write that code, I'll see if I can do it (if you confirm that is what you're looking for). → ROUX ₪ 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that recently closed discussion should remain in full and ready view for some non-zero period of time. Agree, three days is probably too long, as it means WP:MFD contains too much space filled with old discussion. Without actually measuring, 3 days worth of completed discussion seems to be taking up more space than the active discussions. I suggest retaining closed discussions for 24 hours, and if that is too long, then 12 hours.
The close of a discussion is an important thing, and as such should be open for review. Moving, or even collapsing, immediately with the close increases the chance that no one with review the close. The fact, that problematic MfD closes are extremely rare, does not mean that review is not needed, and does mean that there is a complacency danger. My fear is that one day, someone will wrongly close and archive a discussion, intimidating the newcomer participants, and the regulars will not notice anything amiss.
Once collapsed, I don’t think there is much point in keeping the header on the page. If you are interested in clicking to see the contents, you may as well be perusing through the archives (eg), in the permanent location, where followed/unfollowed links are colour coded. Digressing to the archives, I would prefer the closer to be named with the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Roux, yes, I think you understand me correctly. SmokeyJoe, would you be satisfied if the closing rationale was still visible on the page, even if the discussion was collapsed? (Remember that the collapse boxes have a hide/show button, so it would be trivial for users to immediately peruse the discussion that led to the close.) See WP:DRV for what this would look like. If that doesn't satisfy you, I think it may be possible to make the collapse time dependent. I think this would be much more difficult to program, though. (Although maybe not; I'm not a template expert.)
As for SmokeyJoe's second suggestion, I think that would work just fine with a minor tweak: just transclude the whole discussion into the archive instead of a link like we currently have. That way, the user viewing the archive will see the closing result, rationale, and closer (just like DRV) right there in the archive, and can just click the "show" button to expand that particular heading. A downside I can see to that approach, though, is that it might take the archive page a long time to render; maybe the bot could just copy the rationale and closing signature next to the link to the MfD subpage?--Aervanath (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, so what if the collapse looked like this:

Link to MFD discussion result was Deleted due to abuse of ocelots

Blah blah blah

Would that work? → ROUX ₪ 07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and no need for a bot really; this would be easy to implement with some #if statements and an includeonly tag to the current MFD templates. Basically the #if statement would be {{#if:pagename|Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|{{collapse-top|rationale=foo}}|}} (I'd need to re-look up the proper magic words, but you get the gist) → ROUX ₪ 07:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Roux, the collapse-box looks good, that's pretty much what I was thinking. We do still want the bot, though; much easier to archive the page. ;) --Aervanath (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Understood, I was just meaning that the only thing the bot will have to do is move discussions into the archive. I'll mock something up and drop a link here. → ROUX ₪ 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think anything involving ParserFunctions and the FULLPAGENAME being equal to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion will get the job done. Just now I thought of an idea, and I will see if it is worth implementing. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually got it to work. A lot was going wrong, but it was ultimately accomplished. At the moment I am seeing if there is an even better way of getting the job done. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is as good as it is going to get. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I was puzzling over why the pagename magicwords weren't working. So I said 'screw it' and went off to make dinner and play Diablo. Thanks for making it work! → ROUX ₪ 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've made it even better. See this diff, where you can now see the rationale and the closer even when the page is collapsed. Also, the template now autosigns for you. It does mean a slight change in usage to the template, though: you now have to include your reasoning as a parameter of {{mfd top}}, instead of putting it afterwards, so the autosign works correctly.--Aervanath (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions for the updated usage notes. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This is awesome! —harej (talk) (cool!) 06:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest on the bot

My bot is able to identify MfD debates that have been closed for one day (I lowered it from three days), but it cannot properly archive them. After I get that working, you will be able to tell. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As a diagnostic, I had the bot just leave the listings on the top of the archive page without any nifty date sorting. No, I don't expect any of you to have to sort it — I will figure out a way to have the bot do it. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The script worked successfully. Please take a look at WP:MFD, the June archive, the July archive, and tell me if you are pleased with the results. —harej (talk) (cool!) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Let's try it for a few days and see how well it works. Will the changes to {{mfd top}} that Roux and I are discussing above mess up your script?--Aervanath (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. Add it to {{mfd top}} then I will test out the script. —harej (talk) (cool!) 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Attempting to test the code, but can't see yet as the cache is taking a bit to update. → ROUX ₪ 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the above section, I have implemented the code. Now to run the script again. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I have covered everything. The bot will now run once a day at UTC Midnight. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool. One thing I forgot to ask: will the bot move the "backlog" heading up as the days go by, and set the "backlog" parameter to yes/no depending on whether there's a backlog? (Sorry for the continued demands. :D ).--Aervanath (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the page, I guess not. :) Could it do this? The "backlog" parameter triggers CAT:ADMINBACKLOG, so there's no need for a separate adminbacklog tag on the page.--Aervanath (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It just did it as a posted that. :) --Aervanath (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

question

For folks that are interested in closes. I posted a question about adding a close date and time to XfD items: posted at: XfD thread — Ched :  ?  14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging blanking/redirecting before MfDing

In line with my now standard arguments for blanking/redirecting in preference to listing at MfD for many abandoned or otherwise uncontroversial userspace pages, arguments which often are not disputed and even form the consensus conclusion, I have modified userpage guidance at Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting.2C_or_otherwise_fixing.2C_other_users.27_userpages_and_subpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with the change as well.--Aervanath (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

I'd like to nominate Talk:Huperprogeny and Talk:Huperson for deletion. Clear vandalism, but did you see that there was a "Huperprogeny" section on [www.bjaodn.org/wiki/Main_Page]? Even clearer vandalism. --220.255.7.156 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Notoriety

Should we "noindex" MfD? Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

What reasoning did you have in mind? —harej (talk) (cool!) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd be in support of it. We are often discussing BLP type material here, we don't need someone freaking out because someone said they were "unlikely to become notable" and it's the top google result for their name. I believe AfD is already noindex for the same reason. Gigs (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's do it, then. @harej 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Has it been done yet? I looked at Template:Mfd top and it doesn't seem to have it. We probably mainly want the old debates to be noindex. Gigs (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I added it, but it might be better in some sort of conditional so that the main MfD page doesn't get noindexed. Someone better at templates should take a look. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK or not OK to remove or restore MfD template while discussion is active?

A user page and the talk page are listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the discussion is still active. The user removed the MfD templates from his user page and his talkpage, and I restored them. Then I began to wonder if it was appropriate to restore the templates. On the English Wikipedia, I understand that the general rule is that users are allowed to remove templates from their own user and talk pages. On the other hand, this is an ongoing matter and the templates are not only directed at the user but are also used to communicate with others that visit the pages.

If it's not Ok to remove it then the relevant pages should be updated (like Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments, warnings and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments). Sjö (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the late response, but I don't believe MfD tags should ever be removed while the discussion is still in progress. @harej 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
MfD tags should not be removed. Even if the page should be blanked during the discussion, the MfD tag should remain while the discussion is open. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I added MfD tags as exceptions to the above pages.Sjö (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed something, but why is this change to WP:USER and WP:DRRC necessary? The mfd template clearly states that editors should "not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress." As a part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, this automatically takes precedence over either the WP:USER guideline or WP:DRRC essay. In practice, {{mfd}} should work exactly the same as all of the speedy deletion tags that say "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Editors who disregard the templates' instructions get reverted, warned, and if they persist, blocked for edit warring or 3RR. They might try to wikilawyer their way out of the block by pointing to the text at WP:UP#CMT that states editors may remove content at will from their own user space, however policy (like WP:DELETE) always trumps guideline (like WP:USER). — Kralizec! (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with WP:USER and WP:DRRC clarifying what is already considered to be policy. @harej 17:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Basic cleanup tasks added to the bot

The bot is now tasked with doing basic cleanup of the page. Removing excess carriage returns has been in mfdarchiver.php for a while, but now the bot enforces consistency in the arrangement of MFDs (namely, one carriage return after each transclusion, two carriage returns at the end of a date section) and empty sections are removed. This shows the changes in effect. @harej 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete->Blank for primary User: and User_talk: pages

For primary User and User_talk pages, it often seems inappropriate to actually delete the pages. I wonder if we should actually start using something like pure wiki deletion for primary user pages (not subpages). We would need an exception to this for copyright violations, and maybe highly offensive material, but I'm not even sure about the latter.

In practice, I have been suggesting blanking when the user is inactive, and !voting delete otherwise. The only real reason I'm voting delete on active users is because we don't have an "official" blanking process which would give blanking the same weight as a deletion in terms of the user restoring the material against consensus. What do you all think? Gigs (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User page prod

Articles in user space which haven't yet been put in to the article space need to be deleted. There should be a user-page type prod method which gives the user 31 days to either move the article in to article space, or if it has been previously been deleted list it at WP:DRV. This would save lots of pointless listings at MFD and make it a much more easier job to deal with spam in user space.--Otterathome (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • If something in userspace bothers you, and is not suitable for mainspace, and has not been worked on for a long time, and you really think there is no other purpose for it, and _noindex_ tagging is not good enough, then you should blank it and/or redirect to the user's userpage. If doing this leads to an argument, then bring it to MfD. Otherwise, there is no problem needing fixing. There are not so many SNOW MfD nominations to justify a new speedy criterion or a new deletion process. I also recommend that you read m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, consider whether you are trying to impose your philosophy on others, and whether it may often be best in userspace to leave things be --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be opposed to a fixed time limit for userfication, like say 6 months. I know, WP:NODEADLINE and what not... but there seems to be a rough consensus that there is a limit to the amount of time that unsuitable articles should stay in userspace. I don't like the idea of a prod-like process, but something like a category and a bot job that deletes everything in the category that hasn't been edited in 6 months (or 12 months even) might work for the most obvious cases. Gigs (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I would object to such deletions, but could consider auto-blankings. Who would identify such things, and how? There is a lot of stuff in userspace that is of value, even if not being edited? What is the problem to be fixed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem is that userspace is indexed and there is real risk of confusion when people land on these articles. If they aren't indexed there's less risk, but the users can still link directly to them and gain credibility. On a more philosophical note, the community has said that these articles are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If we let them stay around forever and be developed and maintained in userspace, then we have negated the entire purpose of deletion. Gigs (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Are succession boxes put up for deletion through MfD or TfD? Either way, I don't see how to place a nomination tag on one. Help a brother out? Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? What are you trying to nominate? @harej 02:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to nominate a succession box for actors who portrayed a particular character. Otto4711 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe those go to WP:TFD. @harej 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, so how does the nomination tag get placed? Otto4711 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: speedy deleting misplaced MfD nominations

On occasion, an article or something equally inappropriate will get sent to MFD. While they are speedily closed, and rightfully so, they're still archived like every other MfD. I don't really think they're worth keeping around, so I propose that rather than closing misplaced MfD discussions, they are promptly deleted. @harej 02:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer that stuff suitable for another XfD be moved there, and other random things be moved to somewhere, whether it is the posters talk page, or a "miscellaneous" MfD subpage, or somewhere. Sometimes people can be insulted to see their posts removed. Sometimes, it can be useful to have a record of the odd things. No big deal though, if there was no resulting deletion, and no substantial MfD-like discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It doesn't bother me too much. Main issue I have is that the TOC entry stays, but you can't anchor to it because it's collapsed. Is there any way we can make the anchors still work on an archived MfD? Gigs (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD proposal that would affect MfD

Hey, not trying to forum shop, I just thought that MfD regulars would want to comment on this idea: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposed_Criterion.2C_U5. My question is, how many "secret pages" come up for deletion here, is it the kind of thing that could be done quicker with less arguing? Irbisgreif (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To make reviewing MfD nominations easier, I think it would be nice to have the following links automatically generated.

  • Page (as current)
  • corresponding talk page
  • page history
  • page incoming links
  • Past MfD listings containing the page name
  • Past AfD listings containing the page name
  • Page title at mainspace

I think I could even work out how to do this myself. Does anyone think it is a good or bad idea? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to add these links to each MfD. The code from {{Afd2}} can be adapted for {{Mfd2}}. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I can easily add a {{Pagelinks}} component to {{Mfd2}} to show several of the items mentioned. The previous MFD list should be relatively easy as well. But a couple of the suggestions seem to assume that the nominated page would be an article draft (e.g., "Past AfD listings" and "Page title at mainspace"), which is just one part of the scope of MFD. This seems irrelevant for, say, userboxes. --RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"Past AfD listings" and "Page title at mainspace" are sometimes irrelevant, but sometimes not, and when relevant the discovery can be important to my recommendation. Perhaps a link to an internal search for the title of the nominated page would serve the same purpose. A one-click search would also help to discover if the MfD-ed page has forks elsewhere in userspace and in mainspace. Adding Template:Pagelinks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to Mfd2 would be good, I think. I try to check 4 to 5 of those things (edit to see if it is noindexed). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. The additional links are helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the good faith of the nominator

Copy/paste responses are unfortunately common here.

Nihonjoe has copy-pasted the words "per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Before_nominating_a_page_for_deletion (which you really need to start heeding, JJ98)" (my emphasis) six times in the present page [11].

Nihonjoe should understand that the nominator is acting in good faith. Look at each Mfd individually and this will be quite clear. --Kleinzach 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I did look at each MfD individually, but I saw no reason to have to type out the exact same thing multiple times when it was applicable in multiple places. As SmokeyJoe has noted, this is not the first time JJ98 has done this, and he's been asked multiple times to stop nominating projects which do not clearly fit the descriptions given in the guideline (referring to the "unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable" part), yet he continues to do so. Thus, "good faith wears thin". Perhaps you should assume good faith on my part, as well, instead of assuming I'm some sort of moron who doesn't bother to read things before commenting. You might notice that I commented on several others beyond those you mention here, and several of them I agreed should be deleted. So, I'm not just robotically going through things here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Nihonjoe: You repeated yourself six times — with the same ad hominem attack. Are you trying to stop JJ98 nominating defunct and stillborn projects? Do you realize that deletion is only one of a number of possible outcomes to an Mfd? What we do here is listen to other people and work out solutions. You are welcome to join in this process. --Kleinzach 12:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not wet behind the ears, Kleinzach, so stop with the talking down the nose at me. My comments were not an attack of any sort, but rather a repeated comment that needed to be stated because JJ98 didn't seem to be paying attention. If the defunct project has had activity, then ye, he shouldn't be nominating it for deleteion; instead he should be tagging it as inactive and leaving it at that. If the project never even got running, then I'm fine with him nominating it (as shown multiple times when I agree with the nom for deletion). I know full well how MfD works, so please stop acting like I don't. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I understand, I should not nominate any WikiProjects for deletion even if there is with discussions. Even if the new WikiProjects had no discussions, it be likely be listed at Mfd. I read the guideline myself. Even if the WikiProjects had medium activity, I tag with {{semi-active}}. If the WikiProject has no activity, tag with {{inactive}}. If the WikiProject is no longer active, I marked as {{defunct}} rather then historical just like WP:SPACE. JJ98 (Talk) 01:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
For the record, 'Before nominating a page for deletion' states it is "generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted" (my emphasis), listing alternatives as inactive tagging, redirection, and changing to a task force — exactly what we discuss here. --Kleinzach 01:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No one is challenging JJ98'2 good faith, but good faith wears thin after someone repeatedly does the same thing. The relevant text reads:
It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable
I agree with Nihonjoe that JJ98 keeps doing something that is the opposite of preferable. What should be done in each nomination is that some statement should be made as to why leaving the WikiProject page tagged {{inactive}} is not OK, and why there is no suitable redirection, etc, thus showing that some attention has been paid to the "Before_nominating_a_page_for_deletion" advice.
And when retagging, or redirecting, or restructuring, is a good idea, please consider avoiding busywork by following WP:BRD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not the first time we've seen nominators attacked for nominating. It just doesn't wash to say "No one is challenging JJ98'2 good faith, but good faith wears thin . . ." Either you accept that the nominator is acting in good faith, or you don't. It's hypocritical to say you accept an editor's good faith and then attack his behaviour.
IMO JJ98 has been highly selective in the Mfds he has nominated. (There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of substantial inactive projects that have not been sent here.) However, I do agree that nominators, in general, should try to give more background information. That's certainly helpful. --Kleinzach 23:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just some general thoughts (not attempting to comment on any specific people or open discussions) from someone who has closed a fair number of XFDs:

  • The motivations of the nominator are often questioned, but such questions are almost never relevant to the closing of the discussion unless it is a "speedy keep" situation (e.g., joke or WP:POINT nominations). Nominator behavior at XFD may have consequences in other venues, such as in an RFC/U or at AN/I, but here you will get farther by questioning their reasoning than their intent.
  • When a support or oppose rationale is copied into several different discussions, the main concern of the closer should be whether it applies to the specific situation of that discussion. If the same reasoning applies to several pages, then there is nothing wrong with repeating the same words. But if a comment is copied into a discussion where it doesn't make sense, it is likely to be discounted. I've seen both situations multiple times.
  • Nominators usually don't do themselves any favors with high volumes of similar nominations, especially if minimalist or seemingly pro forma rationales are used (even if the result of substantial investigation), unless what they are nominating is obvious junk that falls just short of speedy deletion. That said, the number of pages nominated isn't a problem per se unless the venue is overwhelmed (e.g., nominating hundreds of pages) or a nomination is blatantly non-specific (e.g., nominating "every page that meets the following search criteria").

Don't know if any of that is useful or if it is just TLDR rambling, but I thought some insight from the closing end might be helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. IMO it's useful to have comments from an objective perspective. --Kleinzach 05:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin action or consensus?

RE: this revert Merbabu - WP:AGF, WP:DRNC. Are you saying that admins need to obey consensus at WP:MFD, even in cases of WP policy vio? Where is my WP:POINTyness? I'm changing the page to reflect actual practice, as per [12] [13]. I'm not contesting Shifty's page deletion. I just think it should be made clear that an admin DECIDES whether to delete or keep the page, and that WP:CONS is preferred, but not required. --Surturz (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You're unilaterally making a significant change on a significant procedure. It seems you're basing this on the precedence of a single very recent deletion. As for my pointy comment, before deletion you strongly argued that there must be consensus for deletion and argued that there was no such consensus - now you're unilateral change says no consensus is required. As I said, it "seems" a bit pointy. But, if discussion here shows, cough, consensus for your suggestion, then let's go with it. --Merbabu (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm basing the change on an editor observation, an admin comment, and the rough consensus guideline that User:SmokeyJoe referenced in his edit.
Merbabu, could you please state your position on the changes in question: do you think the page should state:
  1. That the admin implements WP:CONS for WP:MFD,
  2. That the admin makes a decision based on WP policy and the discussion, but is not bound by WP:CONS, or
  3. Something else?
It is difficult for me to build WP:CONS for change if you address only the process and not the substantive issue. --Surturz (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The Admin's decision is not arbitrary. While Consensus is preferred, consensus can take more than forever to achieve, and to keep the wheels turning, something called "rough consensus" is invoked. I see rough consensus as an approximation of consensus, where the admin judges where consensus is headed at the 7-day timepoint. Judging rough consensus is not an easy skill, and sometimes you even need to be well conversant with many policies, policies that sometimes may not even cited in the debate or the close. This is one reason why befuddled participants and observers are encouraged to ask the closer to explain. Asking questions when something seems wrong is good. I've observed that when a closer gets asked enough questions, their closes become more explanatory. Of course admins sometimes get it wrong. Or the closer supervotes. Or crucial information was not brought up, or understood, at the time of closing. For these reasons there is DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Scope-creep in MfD with unimportant non-applicable busywork

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Adventure games user:Kleinzach asks that I take my general concerns about the process to the Mfd talk page.

My problem is that two users, mostly JJ98, but also Kleinzach, are regularly nominating pages without a rationale for deletion, and even sometimes with an explicit recommendation for rename (eg Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Galatea).

In not providing a rationale for deletion, they are blatantly ignoring the request at #Before nominating a page for deletion, which says: "WikiProjects and their subpages * It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable." And where explicitly recommending a rename, MfD is being used for the explicit purpose of WP:RM.

Their intent, I struggle to guess, is that they seek wider input for a restructure. WP:RM is seriously backlogged, so try WP:MfD? Unfortunately, this is a damaging corruption of process.

Wikipedia is supposed to be for anyone to edit. It is supposed to be a self-managing volunteer project that welcomes everyone. This is largely true, except when it comes to deletion. Only special users can delete. This gives special people to special power. The balance to this power are tight rules on its use. Unilateral deletion is tightly controlled bya strongly worded policy at WP:CSD. All other deletions are subject to special forums, the XfDs. The main purpose of XfDs is to maintain a check on deletion.

The misuse of an XfD by flooding it with unimportant or non-applicable matters damages XfD by driving away the already too few Wikipedians who keep the process working. For this reason, MfD should not be a first port of call for matters that don't require administrator action and can be dealt with by ordinary editorial action, which is the way the project should mostly run. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe's concerns regarding these two editors' actions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe is welcome to raise this matter here. I hope this will mean that he will not continue to repeat his concerns on individual Mfds.
We consider alternatives to deletion here. That's the bottom line. Precedents have clearly established that. This is not a 'deletion or nothing' forum. SmokeyJoe, Nihonjoe and many, many others have suggested options other than deletion or keeping. Denying that option to the nominator while giving it to the discussant is illogical. The text on the Mfd page on WikiProjects and their subpages gives the following alternatves to deletion/retention:
"marking as {{inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or chang[ing] to a task force of a parent WikiProject"
With regard to my nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Galatea with a personal suggestion to rename, this particular case was unique. It related to a very old (and very dead) page. Frankly I expected my nomination to the discussion to have met with more good faith. Also please note — although I don't make a lot nominations personally — my ones always include full background information and a clear recommendation(s) on remedies.
The topic heading "Corrupting MfD with unimportant non-applicable busywork" is accusatory. This is not conducive to a balanced discussion. SmokeyJoe: Can you please change it to something more balanced? Thank you. --Kleinzach 06:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe "scope creep" is more accurate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
"Unimportant" refers to pages such as those that are already informatively tagged as "inactive", where ignoring them will cause no harm of hindrance. Non-applicable refers to discussions where the nominator is not asking for an administrative action, or a rough-concensus close of an exisitng disagreement. Busywork is a characterisation of MfD that has been made before - alleging that much that happens here is of no real consequence to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that an {{inactive}} tag should be a bar to nominating an Mfd? This is not something that is suggested in the Before nominating a page for deletion text. In any case, project pages are not being nominated simply because they are inactive, but for additional and more important reasons. --Kleinzach 14:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
No. I am suggesting that things should generally not be nominated unless: (1) the nominator can give a good reason why he think it should be deleted (which requires more than "inactive"); or (2) there is an existing disagreement (may require tagging, archiving, blanking, redirecting, closing down, retasking) and the matter belongs nowhere else.
On you part, I suppose I only ask that you don't make a habit of bringing rename discussions here. Note that WP:RM exists for that purpose. Maybe you've only done it once.
On the part of JJ98, who you defend sometimes, I ask that he clearly state his desired outcome, and an applicable reason for it. I appreciate that there is often a good reason, but he should say what it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It's generally true that nominators don't give enough background information and explanation. It would be better if they did. If you check through the current Mfds you will see that I often ask for more detail. I think you should do the same.
SmokeyJoe: You write: " I only ask that you don't make a habit of bringing rename discussions here. . . Maybe you've only done it once. " That's unacceptable. You should not imply there have been a series of similar nominations (knowing there weren't) in order to pin culpability on a single instance (disingenuously) — then withdraw the statement (before it's contradicted by the facts), to leave what is essentially a smear. This kind of tactic debases this discussion. --Kleinzach 01:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kleinzach, the issue is nominating pages at MfD with a recommendation to rename, in the absence of any evidence of disagreement. I say this is scope creep, that MfD is for deletion nominations, that renames should be done boldly or taken to WP:RM. The issue is not really the history or habit, but your apparent strong view that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Galatea is a reasonable nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Metropolitan90 wrote on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Galatea: "I never had any involvement with this project before this MfD started, so I probably wouldn't even have heard about the move if it had happened without the page going to MfD." So indeed, yes, I think it was a good idea to bring Galatea to the notice of other editors. It was done in good faith, and should have been treated as such, not used as the occasion for a personal attack. --Kleinzach 02:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, you think it was a good idea. But why bring it to MfD, but not raise an RfC, or take it to a village pump. And why not WP:RM?
I think you are being oversensitive. I have never questioned your good faith, nor attacked, let alone personally, and apologise if my tone is being received poorly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


How about if there are more nominations of projects that clearly fall outside the "before nominating a project" instructions, they are speedy closed. THis will save a fair bit of effort. If the nominations continue then the nominators are warned. If nominations end up being disruptive then the nominators can be blocked. In the longer run we may need a community ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
We've already discussed the problem of questioning the good faith of the nominator, see here. Please see in particular the thoughts of RL0919 at the end of the discussion. --Kleinzach 14:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we can put Graeme down as agreeing that scope-creeping nominations can annoy. However, we are a long way from needing to resort to remedies. First we need to establish a consensus for what is in-scope and out-of-scope for MfD. I'd suggest that other users here should comment on what sort of nominations are welcome, and what other sort (if any) are unwelcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree what problem is Smokey, you can't nominate large or medium WikiProjects for deletion like which I tried to nominate WikiProject Media franchises and WikiProject Cartoon Network for deletion, but kept. I agree that Ned Scott's comments at my second archive:


And even Nihonjoe asked me when I tried nominate WikiProject Evanescence and WikiProject The Wire for deletion. Yes, I agree since this new policy for WP:MFD says:


Even narrow WikiProjects like WikiProject MythBusters and WikiProject Mecorsur which had been deleted due to narrow scope. Yes, I agree with you Smokey, I should not nominate large WikiProjects for even when there inactive. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
JJ98, I am not sure that we are on the same page. I don't think I completely understand what you have said. Size is not a primary criterion. Something large and complicated may have a lot of useful history, but blatantly inappropriate things can also be large and complicated. Most of your nominations are of things that a reasonable person might think should be deleted. I find this on examination. What I ask is that you make it clear that you asking for deletion, or if not, then what, and that you provide a little more information on why. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mfd nomination scrutiny

Anyone may scrutinize my Mfd nomination record, or that of JJ98, or any other nominator. There is only one relevant criteria to indicate worthwhile nominations — whether or not there have been a series of 'speedy keep' decisions. (In my case I don't remember any aborted nominations, though this can be checked.). My Mfds have led to a wide range of outcomes — deletions, keeps, redirects, taskforces, mergers etc. — indicating healthy debates on the problems involved. I think that's entirely satisfactory.

Non-nominators should bear in mind that those who bring pages here are making an effort to help in the cleanup of the Wikipedia namespace (effectively our 'editorial offices' or 'engine room', to use another metaphor) in order to make it easier for editors, especially new editors, to contribute effectively to the encyclopedia. --Kleinzach 01:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does deleting inactive wikiprojects make it easier for editors to contribute to the encyclopedia? If anything it makes it harder for people to contribute because dead wikiprojects are not entirely useless. People may need to refer to the discussions associated with the wikiproject and if someone wants to create an (active) wikiproject on that subject then it's easier to return an inactive project to activity than it is to start a new project from scratch. Hut 8.5 08:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the many, many viable Wikiprojects with reasonable scope — that happen to be inactive — with long dead projects that have proved unrecoverable over five or six years. Speaking personally, I'm not in favour of nominating projects that were started in the last couple of years (see for example my opinion on the recent Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoga). As we've often pointed out, it's important to look at these case by case. Some projects involved collaboration — which is the whole point of a WikiProject — and some did not. --Kleinzach 10:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, why does it benefit the encyclopedia to delete wikiprojects that have been inactive for several years? Hut 8.5 11:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Clean up. Imagine your desk is piled up with old drafts of letters, essays, assignments etc. What do you do? Keep stacking them up or throw them in the waste-paper basket? --Kleinzach 01:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a very poor analogy for Wikipedia. The main reason you would throw that stuff out is because it is taking up valuable space on your desk, but Wikipedia has practically unlimited space (and deleting old Wikiprojects doesn't free up space anyway because the contents are still visible to administrators). Hut 8.5 08:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Your desk is a work place, not just storage! You won't understand the analogy if you confuse the Wikipedia namespace with the encyclopedia. --Kleinzach 23:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
But we do commonly and routinely use the Wikipedia namespace and other non-article namespaces for storing archived discussions, proposals etc. You have yet to point to any identifiable benefit for the project from deleting old wikiprojects other than a general view that keeping old stuff is bad. Hut 8.5 12:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
And how do you know they are unrecoverable. Just because someone hasn't done anything with them for a while doesn't mean that someone else may not come along and build on what is already there. If the project had activity from multiple people, there's no reason to delete it. Marking it inactive is good enough for our purposes, and it serves no purpose (other than deletionism) to delete a project which once was active and had collaboration between multiple editors. The only projects which should be being deleted are those which failed to ever get started. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Nihonjoe. When you say " . . . for a while . . . " do you mean a matter of months? Or a year or two? Or five or six, or even seven years? Can you please be more specific? --Kleinzach 06:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no point in being ultra specific in all cases. It should be determined at the time. If the project hasn't seen activity for a time period deemed excessive for a project, then it should be tagged inactive. It should not be tagged for deletion if there has ever been any semblance of coordinated activity and discussion by multiple editors. Tagging it inactive is enough. The only time a project should be deleted is if it never really got started (pages incomplete, only one or two people listed as participating, no substantial discussions on the project talk pages, etc.) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
After so many people have brought this up you would think others would get the point. But no we are still here having to deal with this and the outcome. I guess we will have to make the recommendations more clear so that people with all reading levels can understand it. What we need is people that will help this projects not a group that goes around deleting everything after "they" have placed the inactive tags killing the projects then asking for there deletion. Would be good to see this people help Wikipedia in a positive manner!!!!Moxy (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Moxy: {{Inactive}} tags do not "kill projects". In fact the banner text encourages new participation. It reads "If you are not currently a member of the project, please consider joining it to help." Perhaps you never saw that? --Kleinzach 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually they do - they indicate to our readers that the project is "inactive" and help is needed to get it going again. So in reality your asking people to re-start this project. Think we will get many editors wishing to re-start projects that they are being told are incative? Or is it more likely they will join a project they believe is active even if its not? This deletions are just making work for the rest of us that have to go around fixing the outcome of this deletions. There is also a lack of respected being shown to this editors that have started this projects with noting but good intentions. We are deleting our own editors good work. The only thing that comes from this deletion of most of the projects is unwarranted conflict and work. All this has been outlined and shown to all many times before Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide] Deletion. In rare cases, deletion may be appropriate. This might be appropriate for completely inactive projects which have no substantive history and serve no residual purpose even without activity . Why is it so hard to simply make this historical instead of deleting it from the average readers view. Historical pages may become alive again. As has been explained before deleting the projects does not save space nor does it aid the community at large in anyway. On the other hand a well rounded project can have significant positive effects on articles and helps in community cooperation.Moxy (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion thread about me at WP:ANI. It's at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jj98. Please take a look. Thank you for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Basics

Moxy: Maybe it would be helpful if you could explain your general approach to Wikipedia? Can I ask you some questions?

  1. Which is more important, the Wikipedia namespace ('the namespace') or the article mainspace (the encyclopedia)? Do you contribute to articles (other than making boxes etc.)?
  2. Do you accept WP:ENC (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia) or refute the ideas given on that page?
  3. Are WikiProjects necessarily collaborations, or do you think they can be one-man operations?
  4. You started the (now inactive) WikiProject Santana and WikiProject The Supremes in November 2010 without proposing them at the Council. Why was that? Have you created or participated in other WikiProjects with under five or six participants?
  5. How many WikiProject main pages have you redesigned? Have some of your redesigned pages been nominated here for deletion?

Please answer below — and feel free to ask me any questions in return. --Kleinzach 01:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I like this baiting type questions? But if I can get you, JJ98 and others to fundamentally change the approach to our projects I will answer all because I lead by example. My approach and attitude towards editing and dealing with our new editors has been well received as seen by some request here and here and I hope one day this can happen to more of our editors.
  1. Anything that contributes to articles is welcomed, encouraged and is fundamental to the success of Wikipedia. So yes encyclopedia is more important, but not at the expense of the collaboration of the community. As to the personal question of my contributions. First let me say please in the future do not judge our editors by there types of contributions. All contributions large and small, main space and namespace are what keep the encyclopedia functioning. My personal contributions consists of a wide rang of topics and project with over 60,000 edits - as seen for the past 3 years here. I create articles that i have academic experience in (History and genetics) like Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, Canadians History of Canada and Aboriginal peoples in Canada. I also help new editors in creating articles like at Talk:HealthLinkBC. As for boxes I am guessing you mean portals - I make portals for Wikiprojects like with Portal:Canadian Armed Forces so that the hard work of our editors is seen. Portals highlight our Wikiprojects best works while at the same time promoting projects themselves (that is not allowed in articles).
  2. As for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I agree with what it says, but your question leads me to believe that you think that our Wikipriojects are some type of "SOCIAL NETWORKING". Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site.
  3. WikiProjects should not be a one-man operations, as there for collaboration. That said a one man project can be easily userfied if and after some time noone joins the project in question. Why rush to deleted this pages it does not save any space. Talk to this editors and there projects see if they can be dealt with by the projects themselves before the long deletion process takes place. These actions would also avoid undue conflicts in making our editors think there projects are useless and dont even merit the respect of a normal talk about pages "they" have created.
  4. I started those specific projects at the request of one of our most prolific music editors User:Discographer because we had the recommended minimum to start with. WikiProject Santana is less then a year old and we are having trouble drawing more editors since you added the semi-active 5 months after the project started. Second part of the question as to the amount of projects I am involved with - I have 2000+ on my watchlist with less the 10 percent under 6 I would say.
  5. I have redesigned a few with Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada being the one I have done the most with (and maintained) - creating sub pages etc. I have never had any pages (main space of namespace) I have created deleted by others ever as far as I am aware of.

Its clear we see things in a different way, i still dont understand why at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers it says "add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page", despite Wikipedia:Editing policy and the Council Guide that say WikiProjects do not own articles. To think is ok to tell our editors that they must ask you and your project permission before they edit pages is nuts and fundamentally the opposite of our Founding principles that anyone can edit.Moxy (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

24 July 2011

I received the following e-mail: "Many of your subpages have been nominated for deletion per WP:STALEDRAFT. Please see WP:MFD for discussions. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC"

What is this about???? Dkpintar (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's directing you to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dkpintar/sandbox single branches and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dkpintar/sandbox CN. Since you requested on your talk page that these pages be deleted I've done that and closed the discussions. Hut 8.5 13:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with a nomination

I came across User:Mybetsy17 while doing recent changes (edits were flagged as self promotion in user space). I don't know if I'd call it self promotion, exactly, but it's a big mess of not-wiki related material that essentially boils down to a stream of consciousness blog type thing. I erroneously reported it for CSD and was directed here by a helpful admin. But I can't make heads or tales of those instructions on the project page. Help (or does it even matter)? Millahnna (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Helpful admin pointed out I could do it with Twinkle, which I'd never noticed before. Thanks, Helpful Admin! Millahnna (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Overlap

There's a bad overlap between the Deletion Discussion and Centralised Discussion boxes aligned on the right and the table in Before nominating a page for deletion section. It's bad on an ordinary sized sscreen and terrible on smaller one. Can anyone fix it? Old Crobuzon (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cunard (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't feel confident about fixing things myself especially on a highly visible page like this. Old Crobuzon (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The issue has, I hope, been resolved by Avicennasis (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Old version of article

Hello, please see User:Mimata: it is a copy of an article from 2009, and are virtually the user's only edits. I believe the proper action is to simply blank the userpage, but as an IP I am prohibited by an edit filter. Would an established user please blank the page per WP:UP#COPIES. --64.85.220.216 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this page to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mimata. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Userpage MfD's

Some observations about proposing user page deletions:

  1. Where possible, don't do it. Most users feel some level of ownership over their userspace. You don't need to own a house for it to be a home, and having some admin come over and delete a page feels like having the cops bust in and take the playstation. So only propose WP:UP's for deletion where there is a reason to think that the user will not rectify the page (e.g. user has left the project, or refused to rectify), or where there is some egregious violation of policy where the revisions need to be made unavailable (e.g. outing or BLP vio)
  2. If there is no reason to think that the user is acting in bad faith, and the page really needs to be deleted rather than blanked, explain the problem and suggest they request a CSD U1. This is quicker than MfD, more polite, and only involves you, the editor in question, and the speedying admin, instead of everyone watchlisting the MfD page.
  3. Consider blanking the page yourself. For example, if you see a WP:STALEDRAFT, the user hasn't edited in a long time, and is not responding to talk page chatter, blank the page yourself and leave an apologetic note on their talk page. If the user returns after a long time, they can revert the blanking and still have access to the content. Again, this is about not violating the sense of control over their own userspace unnecessarily.
  4. Admins: remember that for non-admins, once a page is deleted , it's gone as far as they are concerned, and if they didn't have an off-wiki backup, they've lost all that work. Admins still have access to page source after deletion, non-admins don't.

Finally, why don't we allow WP:PROD for user pages? PROD is a much more constructive process... XfD's tend to judge the page as it is at proposal, while PROD gives editors a chance to fix the page. Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what MFD is for, which I feel is more than enough. WP:NOTWEBHOST comes into play most of the time in conjunction with WP:STALEDRAFT. Blanking is sometimes an option, but it still leaves the link "active".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The reason PROD exists is to reduce the load on articles for deletion by carrying out uncontroversial deletions. The only reason why it would be appropriate to use it on userpages is if MfD isn't handling the load, and I see no evidence of that. If you want to propose an expansion of PROD to userpages then the place to discuss that is WT:PROD. Hut 8.5 10:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
A reason for not allowing WP:PROD for userpages, from what I remember of brief discussions, is that userpages tend to have VERY few watchers, and VERY little traffic, and if the user is not logged in, they devolve to speedy deletions without minimum criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Userspace != mainspace. We can well afford to have actual discussion instead of "speedy deletion" of pages which are not an affront to Wikipedia. And very few userpages are at that level - and if one wishes, one can blank them without delay. Thus - no need, and the fact that such criteria might be mal-used lead me to strong agreement with SmokeyJoe. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the points put forward by Surturz. I think we need to step back and not jump to proposing user pages for deletion. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is better for people to BOLDLY but gently handle forgotten stuff themselves in the first instance, as per Wikipedia:UP#Handling_inappropriate_content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheist Wikipedians

Why and how is Category:Atheist Wikipedians in Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion?Greg Bard (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I can't find anything that suggests how it got there.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Meinsla/templates/kansas is transcluded onto Category:Atheist Wikipedians. Because User:Meinsla/templates/kansas is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Meinsla/templates/kansas, the MfD template categorized both the userbox and the category under Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion. I have rectified this issue by enclosing {{mfd}} with the <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_4&oldid=465963439"