Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 6

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 Kleinzach (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 10 January 2012 (→Automatic links to help review of nominated pages: restoring misarchived discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Blanking of article before proposing it for deletion?

Specifically is this [1] proper? Following initiation of discussion (which was started when the article was effectively blanked) the nom made this edit [2] on 13 January at 17:33, reverted at [3] and back to essentially a blank at [4] all in the space of 9 hours (last revert says the blanking was done "as a matter of courtesy"). Is this how MfD is intended to function? Collect (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD can function by referring people to a version in the history, but this is not how it is supposed to work. If a page can be fixed by editing, it is relevant to the discussion and should be allowed. Courtesy blanking discourages fixing by editing, and so is not a good idea. If a page is so offensive that it can last another week, then it should be referred to an oversight request and nothing should be posted at MfD, or anywhere else. If it is not oversight worthy, but you feel there is a sensitivity concern, then consider that Taking administrative shortcuts, or other unusual actions, in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing some of the tasks involved with the deletion of projects

Is there some sort of bot or a procedure for deleting the templates and sub pages that are associated with projects that get deleted. For instances Template:WikiProject Nickel Creek Template:WikiProject Linkin Park Template:WikiProject Deftones are now red links on many pages and should have been removed. Should we not implement some sort of system to eliminate this templates after projects are deleted. There is also all the sub pages associated with projects that are not being deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickel Creek/Collaboration for instance. This deletion need to be done properly and be all inclusive not leaving all the sub pages intact. Moxy (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For the templates, drop them in WP:TFD/H, and a bot will take care of it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting closure and restart of a debate

I believe the duscisson over WP:Think of Wikipe-tan! has become a battleground over Wikipe-tan and not the issue of the page. This seems to be increasingly the case with every post I have seen since the page was cleaned up. There have been a number, mostly anti-wikipe-tan, who have voted in what seems to be their opinions on the character on the page and not about the page itself. IMO any decision with the current debate whether keep or delete will be tainted by people's stance on the character Wikipe-tan rather than the merits (or lack thereof) of the page itself.

EDIT: In addition, there are also a lot of people complaining about previous content versions of the article rather than the current version which is not how things should be done.陣内Jinnai 22:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I trust that the person who closes the MfD will be competent and able to weigh the merits of the different opinions expressed, and explain their decision, rather than simply resorting to a head count. In other words, invalid votes will carry no weight, on both sides of the debate, so you don't really have to worry about the MfD being irreparably tainted or unusable (in all honesty, there are quite a lot of deletion discussions that break along emotional lines just as this one has). —Soap— 23:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no change. (Non-admin closure per WP:SNOW.) Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion → Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion — All the other deletion disuussions are "for discussion" (e.g. WP:Redirects for discussion) apart from AFD, which I have nominated as well. 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Categories for discussion was once "for deletion". Japanese knotweed (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - based on an incorrect assumption (they are not the only two). AfD, SfD and MfD are all at "deletion" for specific reasons relating to their nature, a naming which was deemed more apprioriate during discusions at the time the others were migrated to their new names (all of them were at one time "X for deletion". CfD and TfD frequently have renaming as a potential outcome, or as a reason for proposal - as such deletion is not the only primary negative option as a result of the discussion. AfD, the primary negative outcomes are deletion and redirection/merging - renaming is rarely if ever an otion. As such, the principal reason for bringing something up for discussion is deletion. The same is true with MfD. With SfD, while renaming is a potential option, that usually results in deletion of existing template names rather than of keeping redirects and deleting categories (as they are all template-fed and soft redirects are unnecessary). Moreover, many stub types are only taken to that page after a discussion period on the Stub sorting "Discoveries" page, WP:WSS/D, hasd been completed, so referring to it as "Stub types for discussion" is confusing and ambiguous, and "Articles for discussion" could easily, to new editors, sound like a variation on the discussions of article content found on article talk pages rather than a discussion about the article's existence overall. As such, in all three cases, "deletion" is the more appropriate term. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no other use for MfD other than deletion as we rarely merge/redirect/etc. userpages and other miscellany. There are talk pages for a reason. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – After taking a look at the last month's MFDs (spot-check), it seems clear that nearly all MFDs end in "keep" or "delete" (as well as all !voting) with what I would guess about 1% of other stuff. It makes more sense to have this remain "deletion". –MuZemike 03:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. All the others are discussions not deletion. Having the word deletion in it implies that it's a forgone conclusion. This doesn't need a pointless debate going back and forth - just be bold and do it - and if someone disagrees, let them bitch on the talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is already too many things listed that would be better approached with direct editing, or even talk page discussion. This rename would only encourage this inefficient approach. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's for discussing proposals to delete things. There's no reason to obfuscate this purpose, which is what the proposed name change would do. --LordPistachio talk 22:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too confusing, especially for newbies. Have seen people on Categories for Discussion past inappropriate things leading to long unnecessary discussions eventually directed to correct place. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose Renaming for the sake of consistency is a completely flawed notion as those other forums have a scope outside of deciding whether to keep or delete a page. MFD is limited to that one area and is not for other types of discussions about misc. pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Discussion" indicates an option other than 'keep' or 'delete', MfD entirely focused on deletion, just like AfD. Things such as RfD are not entirely centered around deletion. This proposal suggests that the different forums are the same so they should be consistent, that's the false premise. Swarm X 03:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - rename is unnecessary. Deletion is the object of virtually all discussions, and the title does not imply that deletion is a foregone conclusion. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose lets be frank and call a spade a spade --Guerillero | My Talk 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Watered-down and confusing. Throughly unnecessary. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I actually think this page should be renamed Wikipedia:Busy work but that's just my opinion. harej 22:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    Good point harej. So many nominations beg: Why not WP:BOLDly fix it, blank it, redirect it or tag it. The subject of so many nominations are so trivial, I cannot understand why the nominator thinks a community discussion is warranted. Having the discussion at a high profile forum is the bigger waste of resources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the only other choices - merge, userfy, redirect - are more or less deletion-ish. Kayau Voting IS evil 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The focus is upon deletion because that is a controlled function. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, busywork. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose emphasis on deletion not discussion The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - MFDs, as far as I have seen, are rarely closed except as delete or keep. Additionally, unless I am badly mistaken, the point is moot since the move is technically impossible due to the sheer number of subpages. EDIT: Unless $wgMaximumMovedPages has been changed from its default value of 100, it is impossible Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Silly political correctness. When I simply discuss things with someone, it might be as soft an issue as "Gee, doesn't that cloud look a bit like a cow?" We are not passively discussing the cow-like appearance of an article when it comes to XFD, we are responding to a request to DELETE IT! Edison (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rash of Wikiproject deletions

Could admins and those nominating Wikiprojects for deletion pls comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Rash of Wikiproject deletions.Moxy (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

These WikiProjects are being discussed and deleted often without participation from editors interested in the covered subject. This is not good participation and so it is a poor claim of consensus. I propose that, as a rule, an MfD of an inactive WikiProject must be notified on the talk page of the parent WikiProject, if a parent is declared at the top of the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When an Mfd is proposed a large notice is placed on the project page. Anyone who has watchlisted that project will see this, because watchlisting applies equally to both the project page and the talk page. You can check this by watchlisting any project page, you will see that you have also watchlisted the talk page. --Kleinzach 13:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying, notify the parent WikiProject on its talk page, much like you're supposed to notify the page creator on their talk page. I think we all know how watchlisting works. The problem here is that if the page has had few participants and that are inactive, few active users will be watching. But there is a good chance that many in the parent WikiProject will have interest, or at least knowledge, but may have never watchlisted the more focus WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Usually, the WikiProject MfD nominator asks for the page to be deleted, but does not ask to inactivate or otherwise end the WikiProject. That is an important distinction and the closing admin should take that into account when closing WikiProject MfDs. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (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 [5].

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)

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)

Listing problems?

I seems that some Mfds still being discussed have disappeared from the Mfd page, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Reggaeton (2nd nomination). --Kleinzach 00:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny formatting problem

In a couple of recently closed MfDs (eg 1, 2), when the collapsed transcluded page at WP:MFD is unhidden, the text is all small, and bold formatting is lost. This is not the case when viewing the MfD pages directly. Any ideas why? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose as group?

I'd like to propose MFDs for a number of User pages which are used as pseudo articles for various fraternities in the Philippines. Since these pages were created by different people (presumably each by a member of that fraternity), should they be viewed as a group or not. Examples include User:Austinclan, User:Adamasnuomega, and User:Zepsom/Zeta_Psi_Omicron. (Yes, I know that there are username issues for the last two, but that's a separate issue, I guess.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal as the most efficient way to delete pseudo articles that violate WP:FAKEARTICLE. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Declined AfC submissions indefinitely host pages

Category:Declined AfC submissions contains numerous stale drafts. In my view, project namespace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or preferred version of disputed content. Is there some sort of process to automatically delete or at least blanks the text of these project namespace stale drafts? I would hate to think that these would need to be MfD'd. Perhaps a bot could go through the pages in that category and blank everything except the Template:AFC submission/declined. I invited the WikiProject here to discuss this.[6] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

These drafts some times can be deleted, but the only consensus is for is at WT:AFC#Proposal_on_Deletion_of_Blanked_AfCs. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
These are kept, so that the contributors can see why they were declined. They can then improve the draft to get another chance at inclusion. The problematic ones should already be blanked, such as copyright violations or slanders. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems wholly in consistent for MfD to delete User pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages after a certain amount of time and to allow that same content to remain forever in project namespace. WP:NOT states Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site. MfD deletes such user subpages. By now, people have become hip to the ideal that they need only post their articles in WikiProject Articles for creation and that content will be available forever from the Wikipeida webspace provider via URL link. MfD is an obvious option. However, what about blanking the article draft (by bot and/or manually) (not Template:AFC submission/declined, Template:afc comment, etc.) if the last edit on the page is more than three months old? That way, contributors have enough time to see why they were declined and the history still remains available to them should they later decide to improve the project space draft to get another chance at inclusion. An example content deletion would look like this and the page would be left looking like this. (As for article drafts newer than three months old, they can be WP:Userfied.) The reasons listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for creation for keeping the WikiProject do not seem to support indefinitely hosting pages that look like articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Graeme here, I just didn't have the time to say it yesterday. Now if someone wants to come back to their draft albiet 5 years from now, now where are basically (even though not directily) telling them that:
  1. They have to go find an administrator, which usually happens via IRC because they want it done while they are on
  2. Therefore revealing their IP address to the ~70-80 people (it's 50 now, but that's lunch time) just by signing on
  3. Then make them wait till the helpers can find an administrator to help this person
  4. Then finally it's  Done
The end does not justify the means in this case. So we violate WP:NOT under WP:BITE. Also the red pillar of wikipedia is Wikipedia does not have firm rules. There is too much at cost here, and as the consensus said back in 2007, Keep these pages except those that fall under WP:CSD Criterion except A5, A7, A9 and WP:NOTCSD. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd say keep almost all - unless copyvio or BLP concerns. I very frequently find it useful to be able to look at old AFCs. Lots of things become notable. Lots of editors come back after long periods of time - which, indeed. we suggest. I've never heard of a case where anyone has been using the page as a host - would that really happen? Would a company or band really go 'wow, look at us on Wikipedia' when pointing to a page that quite clearly in the title says it is an AFC, and has a big 'DECLINE' template on top? If necessary, I can trawl my logs and probably find good examples of things I've gone back to after >1 year - and I will do so, if it seems necessary (depending how this discussion goes). But as a quickie, note User talk:Chzz#Belated response to your offer for help - that user wrote it in Nov 2011, and just popped up yesterday. Please, keep, unless absolutely necessary to delete.  Chzz  ►  19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the value in keeping declined submissions for a certain amount of time in order to allow the author to see why is was rejected. But it seems to me that the author probably won't be checking back for the first time after, say, a year. I would therefore support the implementation of a time limit; that is, declined submissions at a certain age would be deleted. But while I find this idea reasonable, I can't find a specific need for it. Wikipedia is not paper, so it isn't as if we need to conserve server space. As for the question of "hosting," I must agree with Chzz and question whether this actually occurs.

In summary, I don't see a need to delete old submissions, but I don't personally see why not, either. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 04:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As per above, I also don't think it is necessary to delete old submissions (other than attack pages, advertising, copyvios, etc.) because there is certainly some potential for development later if the author chooses to return to it (yes, this actually does happen quite a bit. I've seen a few that were improved from being declined a year or two ago). This is really an archiving system (just like we archive help desk queries and old requests for feedback), except the "threads" here are on individual subpages instead of on a single page like they were in 2006. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Uzma Gamal, I am going to stop watching this discussion - because, I think we've established that the pages shouldn't be deleted. Thanks for alerting me to the discussion, and please do alert me again if there is any similar thing. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree that it somewhat violates the stale draft guideline which is used to delete many userspace drafts(which I do not agree with). But, like they said, we shouldn't rush the newcomers to complete the article. On things that are obviously not notable, it should be acceptable to delete old, untouched pages so there aren't loads of pages wasting space just because somebody made it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Increasing backlog

About half the page is now 'old business' with unclosed Mfds dating back to March 20. I wonder if we need to recruit some new closing admins? --Kleinzach 00:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of the easy ones have now been worked, leaving mostly nominations for WikiProjects, which are a pain to delete properly because of all the sub-pages and template transclusions that need to be taken care of. If it isn't worked down more by the weekend, I can tackle more of it then. --RL0919 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Need help

This user page seems to be at least half promotional (i.e., links to commercial sites promoting user's business, books, etc. But some of it is OK. Should I nominate it for deletion, or what? VirtualInitiative (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the external links (which aren't excessive either), I think it is within the amount of leeway normally given to userpages, and it is not blatantly promotional. If you feel somehow strongly about this, the best thing to do at this point would be to approach the user on his talk page and explain your concerns to him — frankie (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
So a dozen external links to the user's websites, half of which go to commercial sites that directly benefit the user, is OK. Just so I understand the policy better, when would you consider such linking excessive? VirtualInitiative (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is of course only my opinion, and I'd be glad to hear other users' take on it, but whether it is actually promotional or not depends on the case, and on the user. My view is that promotional content is not permitted by policy to avoid having WP being used as a platform for commercial gain, which is not only against the spirit of the project, but it also imposes a toll on the project resources. As I read Centpacrr's userpage it think he is promoting himself, not to the world (and not for commercial gain), but to the WP community instead, and that plays a good part in creating the bonds required for the community to endure, which is in the spirit of the project. As the page is written it couldn't be used as if it was his webpage (as in WP:NOTWEBHOST), since the prose is too WP-related. I'm not a fan of external links, and I cannot give you an amount of how many would be too many, but given the context I guess I'm not concerned by this many. Again, perhaps the best thing here would be to talk to the user about it, and if your concerns are not addressed you are indeed free to start a discussion to gather consensus on this matter. It isn't the exact same situation, but I think you'll find this recent MfD to be a good read on the matter — frankie (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. VirtualInitiative (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The above disingenuous "request" for "help" by User:VirtualInitiative on how to get my WP userpage deleted for being "self promotional" was actually made as a continuation of a long pattern of Wikistalking and other misconduct by Long Term Abuser Techwriter2B of which "VirtualInitiative" has been identified as being yet another of his/her more than 300 confirmed registered (12) and anonymous IP (295+) sockpuppet accounts. (One of this banned user's cardinal practices is to pretend to be a "newbi" seeking guidance or "help" from veteran Wikipedians under false pretenses as he/she has done here in order to "legitimize" his/her Wikistalking.) As have all the others, that account has now been blocked from further editing on WP for "vandalism, spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks, and repeated, blatant violations of WP's neutral point of view policy." Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unused userboxes

Is there a guideline that suggests that userboxes should be deleted merely because they are not used anywhere? There are a whole lot up for deletion here at MFD. I see no reason to delete any of them. Someone some time might want to use them. Why delete them? However I can not be bothered to !vote on every single item. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving them there allows the template space to fill up with rubbish. New userboxes should be created in userspace. We don't want people creating lots of useless userboxes. If there are no transclusions, then we assume that no-one is interested; if they are, it is trivial to re-create a userbox. None of these userboxes are listed at WP:UBX, and with good reason. ... Those are some reasons. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
So the template space fills up with rubbish! Are we running out of space? However, if it is real rubbish, there should be a good reason for deleting it and the fact that a template is not used is not a good reason. You say there is good reasons why they are not listed at WP:UBX. Well in at least one case that is not true. There is no reason why Bond University should not have a template along with all other Australian Universities, and I have added it there. Note I am not a fan of Bond University, but it is an Australian University. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there a guideline that suggests that userboxes should be kept merely because they exist? Bulwersator (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not the point. The burden is on the editor who wants something to be deleted to prove their case, not the other way round. Hut 8.5 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless there is a reason to delete something, outside article space we keep it. "Fills up the template space" is imho probably the weakest argument I ever heard anywhere. It suggests we have some kind of space or other limit of templates that can be created and thus old ones have to be removed. We all know that's not the case. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and let me ask a question I would never ask in an AFD. Are these unused userboxes doing any harm? Do they have a potential to do any harm? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, I would strongly advise that we close all those MFDs for procedural reasons now and first discuss whether there is consensus to delete such userboxes in general if they are unused. Since all those MFDs use the same reasoning for their nominations, the validity of said reasoning can and should be discussed in general, not individually. Also, current (and future) nominations of such templates flooding MFD is a bad idea, since it will create a huge amount of unnecessary edits if people have to copy+paste their !votes to each individual discussion. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering the very strong opinions expressed here and on WT:CSD and the very low number of people participating in those discussion, I've closed a bunch of them in order to allow a thorough discussion here. I have no objections to the renomination of those userboxes, after this discussion closes. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Can we add a CSD category? --Surturz (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Proposed: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#New_CSD_-_T4_Unused_userbox_that_is_more_than_30_days_old --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I have been over there to oppose because I do not think there should be a speedy criterion unless there is already a normal delete criterion. So far as I can see there is not a normal deletion policy or even consensus that there should be such a policy at present. I tend to oppose deletion of templates (or userboxes) solely on the grounds that they are unused but I might be persuaded otherwise. There is a slightly similar situation with unused images which may (or may not) be of interest (permanent link). Thincat (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
If MFD is cluttered with unnecessary attempts to delete things for no good reason, the solution is surely some sort of speedy keep procedure not a speedy deletion criteria. MFD is an important process, but we need to keep it focussed on deleting things that we have good reasons to delete. ϢereSpielChequers 10:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There should definitely not be a "speedy keep procedure," and these shouldn't have been "procedurally closed." MfD is for discussion to delete "miscellany," and if someone wants it to be deleted, it should be discussed. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 15:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I !voted "keep or procedural close" at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User legal userboxes saying that my opinion applied to "all these analogous nominations". This remains my view and I would welcome a speedy close. At that discussion it has been remarked (I think) that the guideline WP:STALEDRAFT applies to unused userboxes but I do not get that implication at all from the text. The text could be extended to cover this, but it has not been. I do not use userboxes but if I did I would want to subst them, not transclude, in case someone made a change that made it no longer apply to me. Am I allowed to do this? Would "unused" deletings prevent future users from subst? Thincat (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Templates that are intended to be substituted may be tagged with {{substituted}}. This signals to other users that the template should not be deleted solely because it lacks transclusions. But there is no consensus for applying this template to userboxes; indeed, it would probably be counterproductive to recommend substitution of userboxes.
As a more general comment to MFD regulars unfamiliar with TFD, you should note that TFD regularly deletes templates that are not used now and are not likely to be used in the future. "Not likely to be used" does not mean "has no conceivable chance of ever being used" - many templates that are deleted at TFD could be plausibly used by some new creation in the future, but there is no reason to believe this is likely to happen. See the current nomination of WP:TFD#Template:Sgn for an example.
I fail to see why userboxes should be treated differently. They are trivial to create (rather more trivial than some templates deleted at TFD on the grounds of being unused), and un-migrated, abandoned userboxes do not need to continue to exist. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
That is helpful. Userboxes are indeed templates and it is not clear why they are discussed at MFD rather than TFD. But they are. I see at WP:TFD a reason for deletion is "The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used". Surprised by that (I do not haunt TFD) I looked in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and found a deletion reason is "Redundant or otherwise useless templates". This is a relevant consideration whereas WP:STALEDRAFT is irrelevant. Can we discover which userbox templates are either (a) redundant (b) useless or (c) not used either directly or by template substitution and no likelihood of being used? If so, I think there is a deletion rationale. Thincat (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
My nominations for deletion are generally of userboxes that are either (a) obscure and probably of interest only to the creator (for example, Template:User no OS, Template:User Garbagepailkid, Template:User singular they:Secret Idenitity); (b) totally broken or incomprehensible; or (c) redundant to some other userbox or template. I am of the opinion that all unused userboxes should be deleted, regardless of future utility, but those I actually nominate are normally fairly obvious deletion candidates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_6&oldid=470545706"