Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_4&oldid=1137424396"