Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 31

message: Recently a number of Wikipedia pages have been nominated for deletion. I believe this is not a desired use for the Vfd process: generally, these articles turn out to be keeps, but they are a waste of time which could be spent actually debating policy rather than voting to keep the document that describes it.  See:
#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection
#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Template standardisation
#Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Infobox_standardisation
#Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion
:I propose therefore, that policy be revised such that all pages for Wikipedia policies, semi-policies, and active proposals be completely exempted from nomination for Votes for Deletion, so long as a policy is in effect, a proposal remains active, or a consensus has not been established to delete the historical information about a former policy.
:Any official policy, guideline page, or historical page about either that was promoted for deletion would be speedily delisted, unless there was a discussion on the talk page with consensus or non-opposition for deletion at and at least 3 days prior to the time of nomination; with a given reason of "Changes to policies and proposals, including making them no longer policy are to be decided on the corresponding discussion pages". --Mysidia (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An exemption on VfD'ing proposed policies would be a bad idea. See: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/No infobox_standardization. Eugene van der Pijll 13:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ohhhh yes, I've seen that example, and the fallout is pretty nasty. Let's not do that ever again thanks. (Folks who disagree should join Wikipedia:Mediation or WP:TINMC, so they can clean up their own damn messes.) Kim Bruning 13:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exempt Policy Pages from Vfd?

message: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matt_Welch isn't appearing on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_20 - What did I do wrong? - I noticed it was up for vfd, but couldn't find its listing on the current pages so tried to add it to the log for the right day. 
Richard Taylor 16:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matt Welch]] 

message: This VFD is listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 17, but is insanely massive. I know it's not the norm, but might I suggest changing that section in the log from a transcluded page to a linked one? My browser SCREAMS at me if I attempt to load that log page. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 15:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead. People have been doing that for quite a while in case of huge nominations. I don't know if the VFD bot can handle it, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. JRM · Talk 15:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance for the recommended procedure.  We used to have to do this much more often.  Un-transclusion should be rare but is still occasionally necessary.  Rossami (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency]] 

message: Help them fix it - A lot of netusergroups article pages are appearing in VfD. In one, I suggested that they ought to have their own wiki and Uncle G suggested anyone could start one and the instructions are at Wiki Science, please pass this on to anyone posting this type of material, some of them are likely to be in a position to get it rolling and reduce the VfD. Alf 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest Wikinetusergroups 

message: :The name "Votes for Deletion" was based on the old Wikipedia software which actually supported voting. For prior discussion of this, see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title and Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/May 2005 Part Two#Moving_this_page.
I would like to formally propose changing the name from "Votes for deletion" (perhaps to "Articles for deletion" just to be consistent with the other deletion sub-processes).  
We have discussed this before and have always concluded that "it's a good idea but not worth the effort".  I've changed my mind.  We are spending too much time and energy reminding users that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that the deletion process is about consensus, not vote-counting.  The name itself is creating confusion and setting inappropriate expectations.
I am ready to volunteer to do the work to change the name.  How much work are we talking about?  Rossami (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that but Ta bu shi da yu is against it and it is not clar to me that there is a consensus. If the discussion is very advanced and most people are in agreement then getting 60% behind one proposal should be easy to get and will clarify what the new name should be. Philip Baird Shearer 00:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, but I don't feel we even need a new page. Problem user pages and policies are best dealt with through the current conflict resolution system. The RFC process allows for more discussion, and precedent already allows us to delete content if an RFD consensus deems it necessary. While faster, the deletion system is not designed for dealing with policy and user pages, and rarely works well in these areas. - SimonP 12:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Pages for Deletion seems most appropriate, the name Articles for Deletion implies a change of policy: currently Votes for Deletion is the fallback for deletion of pages that don't already have a separate deletion process.  I think this fallback is useful.  There's no reason not to just redirect articles for deletion to pages for deletion, though.  Is there any possibility to make some kind of wildcard or subpage template type redirect?  I.E. a redirect that includes the name itself and all non-existent subpages of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/(subpage) and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/(subpage) to Wikipedia:Pages for Deletion/(subpage) without actually creating each page individually? (thousands of redirects would be a waste, as would be the effort to create them) --Mysidia (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: One at a time. Let's worry about AFD for now. --Titoxd 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change (again) 

message: * I think if people agree to this we should just start and then we'll see where we end up. Kim Bruning 23:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that but Ta bu shi da yu is against it and it is not clar to me that there is a consensus. If the discussion is very advanced and most people are in agreement then getting 60% behind one proposal should be easy to get and will clarify what the new name should be. Philip Baird Shearer 00:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus to do anything at all

message: Assuming that there are no technical problems with this move, I think that this move, though a lot of work, is probably a good idea. But as I said above I think we have to build a clear consensus for this change. This is not something that can easily be undone. And It is imperative that we not add to the perception that Wikipedia is run by a "chosen few". I think we can achieve a clear consensus for this change, but it will take some work. I think the right way to go about it would not to have a vote. Rather I think we should create a page containing a statement of the reasons for this change, signed by all of us who support and "sponsor" this change. And we all try to convince other editors to sign this statement and become "sponsors". And we make the change only after a sufficient number of sponsors have signed the statement, so that it is clear to everyone that a consensus exists. Perhaps we could call the page: Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Statement in support of renaming VfD. Anyone care to turn that red link blue? Paul August ☎ 20:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
----
This shouldn't really be a vote, since discussion is very advanced, and the objections to Articles for deletion have been satisfied by the creation of Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Any annoyance during the change is going to be purely temporary, as any major change to any page will prove. --Titoxd 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that but Ta bu shi da yu is against it and it is not clar to me that there is a consensus. If the discussion is very advanced and most people are in agreement then getting 60% behind one proposal should be easy to get and will clarify what the new name should be. Philip Baird Shearer 00:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on building a consensus 

message: * There are templates (such as  tghat make automatic links to past VfD pages based on article nme. Unless you move old archives, you break these templates for any page with a VfD prior to the move. DES (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the individual discussion pages 

message: Thanks for continuing to add to the list.  It's a scary amount of work.  I still think it's worth it (with the caveat that we should have a separate discussion about whether or not we really need to move all the archived deletion debates).  Hearing no major objections, can we move on to agreeing on a new name?  
Pages for deletion is imperfect but it does parallel the others - "Templates for ...", "Redirects for ...", Categories for ...", etc.  Rossami (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What name to use? 

message: *How about this... we can do it gradually. If we rename today's page to "Pages for deletion/log" and update the template, then every new nomination will go there. Wait a week and voila! Radiant_>|< 11:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
*It would be good to set an exact time and date for when this process will begin. I've long supported this as well, and will do what I can to help. We will need a bot if we are going to move all the archived subpages, but I don't see renaming these as crucial. These can wait until later, if we do feel necessary to move them. Agree about VfU, but this might require some separate discussion as to a name. VfU is also used for categories and other non-articles so "Articles for undeletion" might be inappropriate. - SimonP 00:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
* Gradual is good. Start gradually in um, in 24 hours? I think AfD is cleanest? (PfD collides with TfD and IfD, so it sounds cool, but is confusing again (no gain :-P ) ). Gradual also allows people to jump in and protest, so consensus has more time to work :-)  Kim Bruning 22:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning the changeover 

message: Where was the announcement that this was going to occur?  Where was the vote that this was going to happen?  Why wasn't the community given the opportunity to discuss this?  Why is the page being renamed without community input?  Zoe 21:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
* The input is here, the time is now. Say your piece! :-) (Announce too if you like!)  Kim Bruning 22:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement?

message: In the color-coded section outlining the three steps for deletion, section three specifically, a large-font link takes you to a Votes for Deletion page.  Shouldn't that link take you to a Pages for Deletion page?  I'm still trying to figure this procedure out, and it doesn't seem to be working for me.    Paul Klenk 17:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link...? 

message: Okay. Reading over the discussion above, I find six people in favor of Pages for deletion (Rossami, Radiant, Android, Denni, Dragons Flight, Dmcdevit), and seven in favor of Articles for deletion (SimonP, Hiding, Theo, Desiegel, Sean Curtain, Uninvited, Kim Bruning). In other words, nearly tied - although many people state that they don't mind either choice particularly much.
So it boils down to this. We need a mechanism for deletion of pages in the Wikipedia namespace. This mechanism is presently VFD. It occasionally gets abused (e.g. the "Wikipedians for Decency" disaster) but it is generally used well (e.g. the "Non-admin noticeboard", "Forbid infobox standardizing", outdated and dysfunctional index pages, never-used wikiprojects, etc, all got sensible discussion and most ended up deleted). The same applies to userspace - userpage nominations are exceedingly rare but sometimes needed.
So we can either 1) name this page "Pages for deletion" and accept the fact that pages in the Wikipedia, Help, Portal and User namespaces (and whatever new namespaces appear) can be nominated here,  or 2) name this page "Articles for deletion" and fork off a new process page for the other namespaces (preferably not one per namespace, though).
My personal opinion would be that nominations from the latter category are rare enough that a separate process isn't needed. Hence, my preference for PFD. Other thoughts welcome. Radiant_>|< 11:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
* Very well, but PFD remains my second choice only, because it's ambiguous with TFD, CFD etc (those are also pages, right?). Also, the PFD name might seem to suggest that other namespace deletion might be a good idea (which it isn't IMHO). Could you address this point in reply here please? Thanks :-) Kim Bruning 11:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't feel we even need a new page. Problem user pages and policies are best dealt with through the current conflict resolution system. The RFC process allows for more discussion, and precedent already allows us to delete content if an RFD consensus deems it necessary. While faster, the deletion system is not designed for dealing with policy and user pages, and rarely works well in these areas. - SimonP 12:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Pages for Deletion seems most appropriate, the name Articles for Deletion implies a change of policy: currently Votes for Deletion is the fallback for deletion of pages that don't already have a separate deletion process.  I think this fallback is useful.  There's no reason not to just redirect articles for deletion to pages for deletion, though.  Is there any possibility to make some kind of wildcard or subpage template type redirect?  I.E. a redirect that includes the name itself and all non-existent subpages of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/(subpage) and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/(subpage) to Wikipedia:Pages for Deletion/(subpage) without actually creating each page individually? (thousands of redirects would be a waste, as would be the effort to create them) --Mysidia (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD/AFD/PFD 

message: I am ambivalent about much of the issues above. But because there is not yet any consensus for "AFD" or "PFD", it makes sense to me to not yet separate "Articles for deletion" from "Miscellaneous for deletion", for lack of a better name. Maurreen (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name vs. separation

message: Am I being too bold here? It might be nice to consolidate structures while we're at it, with a link structure as follows:
* Pages for deletion
** Articles
*** 3rd August
*** 4th August
*** 5th August
** Redirects to pages
** Images
** Categories
** Templates
*** 1st August
*** 4th August
** Stub Types
** Misc. Items
Maybe that's 1 or 2 bridges too far though. Pages for deletion is an ok name for the entire deletion process, but not for a part of it (IMHO).
You might have also noticed that I've snuck in Misc Items as a separate thing. I'm becoming convinced that this might be a really good idea. While Misc Items almost never happen, at the same time they're the most likely to cause all kinds of evil wikinomic stuff to occur. Grepping VfD for these items has always been a pain, and it'd definately be nice to have them on their own page. 
Oh yeah, I'd like to start implementing at the soonest, so if we can't get consensus on this right now, I'll just let it be. We can just go with wherever we've gotten so far. Kim Bruning 17:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slightly BOLDer plan

message: One of the key stumbling blocks in the above discussion seems to be that some people want to explicitly seperate Wikipedia/User/etc spaces from the main article space deletion process.  Others want to keep them together.  I would like to have a straw poll (i.e. not binding and not too evil) on this specific issue to see where people stand because the above is getting hard to follow and fairly convoluted with the issue of various names and abbreviations.  Let's decide whether we want one process or two and then work out what to call them.
*One process.  As above, I think that seperating them makes little sense because there are too few of these miscellaneous deletions to warrant a seperate process, and deletions of Wikipedia and similar space material are too big an issue to be hidden on seperate, likely to be little-used process page.  Dragons flight 18:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Separate processes. Abuse of the user and policy namespaces are fundamentally issues of behaviour, not content. Since the deletion system is designed to evaluate content, and the dispute resolution system is designed to evaluate behaviour, to me it seems far better to deal with problem user pages and problem policies at RFC or even the Arbcom. - SimonP 19:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Separate. In short, I agree with SimonP. Maurreen (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One process or two? 

message: I don't mind straw polling for a while longer, but most people seem to prefer a separate process for non-mainspace-stuff. And of course SimonP and Hiding make good points that different criteria apply. So supposing we get consensus for that, how would we call it? Also, regarding its function, my first thought would be to model it after WP:TFD (that is, no subpages). It would otherwise use the same discussion format and "votes" etc, and would apply to all namespaces not covered by another process (i.e. Wikipedia/Help/Portal/User and any new ones, with the added notice that we should be very lenient about userspaces). Of course that's assumption on my part, any comments or objections? Radiant_>|< 23:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
* Wikipedia:Miscellaneous for Deletion should be ok. After all, "Miscellaneous" says that anything that doesn't fit elsewhere belongs there, and MFD sounds better than NMNPFD (its current name). I would say that it would be better for it to have subpages, like VFD has now, because discussions on the Wikipedia namespace can get quite long, and the page will need to be purged every once in a while. --Titoxd 23:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate

message: I strongly support renaming VfU, but it should become simply Wikipedia:Undeletion, WP:U for short. (These are presently redirects to  Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops; which can be moved to Wikipedia: Undeletion for sysops; WP:US. These names are  straightforward, and avoid confusion with Wikipedia:Deletion reform Septentrionalis 20:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One at a time. Let's worry about AFD for now. --Titoxd 03:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming VfU

message: I plan to change the code in VFD Bot so that the new pages will begin starting 1 September 2005 (UTC).  VFD Bot will begin editing and creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpages starting that day.  If you have any objections, please list them immediately on my talk page.  I will forego any changes if an object is raised. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot change over 

message: The discussion over naming consistency has reminded me of something else that has been bugging me for a while. Why is it that VfD, IfD, and RfD have new entries listed at the bottom, while CfD and TfD have new ones listed at the top? We are all quite used to it, but it has to be confusing for newcomers. - SimonP 18:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Good point. Also note that WP:RFA and WP:RFAr list things on top. Not sure about WP:FAC. Consistency is good. I don't have a particular preference about this one. Radiant_>|< 23:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
**SfD and FAC also list at the top. Oddly, though I think overall top-listing is the better system, it might not work so well with VFD, simply because of the large number of items - but that may be simply a gut feeling rather than having any sound foundation. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More consistency

message: Some admins seem to be ignoring or twisting the clear consensus expressed in Vfd's, For example, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sea anenomes, where there were 10 votes for Redirect and one for delete, none for keep. But the result was reported as The result of the debate was keep and of course feel free to redirect. --Tony Sidaway. IMO this is ignoring the cleqar consensus, and disrespecting the people who mposted comments. It is arguably also WP:POINT. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion says: the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus: Keep; Delete; Cleanup or BJAODN; Merge and/or redirect; Transwiki. It seems to me that an admin not willing to accept a consensus for any of those outcomes should not be closing VfDs. I will admint that a merge of a large articel can be a tricky and complex bit of work, but the admin could certianly put one of the merge templates on the relevant article along with a note about the VfD result. But a redir is easy for the closing admin to do. True, it doesn't require admin powers. Neither does a keep. But if an admin undertakes to close a VfD with a clear consensus to redir, then i think reporting the result as "redirect" and doing the redir are part of the admin's duties. I think that in the course of the rename and reconstruction of the VfD page, we should make this very clear in the rewritten instructions. DES (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I haven't seen anyone ever say "Nyah, nyah, you didn't get 10 unanimous delete votes, so I'm taking the tag off."  If that it supposed to be a comment about Tony extending the process on a couple of recent VfD discussions where there were only a few delete votes and no keep votes, then while I disagree with Tony's conclusion, he did not "take the tag off" but simply concluded that two votes was not a strong consensus.  Personally, I read almost every VfD nomination and don't bother to vote delete on most of the ones I consider "no-brainers" (which are most of the nominations).  If dozens of editors have looked at a nomination and the result is only two deletes but no keeps, I think that means no one wants to keep it.  But that is my opinion.  I think we all acknowledge that there is a lot of subjectivity in this process and we should assume good faith. -- DS1953 14:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
* Tony's interpretation of "redirect as a form of keep" is, in my opinion and experience, the interpretation that is most supported by our policy and precedent.  Someone voting "redirect" could mean "turn this article into a redirect but there is no need to delete the history" (and, indeed, one person in this particular debate took the time to explicitly say so).  An unadorned "redirect" opinion could also mean "the content is so bad or offensive that it must be deleted from history but then replace the article with a redirect" (and in other debates, we do sometimes see votes of "delete then redirect").  Absent clear guidance from the user, the closing admin's only safe interpretation of a simple "redirect" opinion is to assume that the user meant "redirect but keep the history".  Once you've decided to keep the article's history, the VfD process is done.  Everything else can be accomplished by any reader/editor who was involved in the discussion or has an interest in the article.  Note that closing a decision as a "keep" does not mean "keep in this exact form".  Once the VfD discussion is closed, normal editing resumes.  While you might think that a VfD closer should carry out all those extra steps, I do not think that it is a reasonable expectation to require them to do so.  Rossami (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: But that isn't what was done in the case above. there were 10 votes for redirect, 1 vote for delete, no votes for keep. It wasn't closed as "redirect" and the article wasn't "edited to replace the current contents with a redirect", at least not by the closer. The closer closed it as "keep" (a result for which there were 0 votes), and did not perform the redir, nor indicate on the relevsnt talk page that a redir had been determiend by consensus in a VfD discussiuon. I wasn't arguing for a "delete and redir" that wiped out the history, at least not in this case. just that 10R 1D 0K be closed as R, not K. DES (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But "keep" and "redirect" are synonymous. Any article that is kept can be redirected by any user; any article that is redirected can be reinstated as a complete article.  Eugene van der Pijll 07:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to close VfDs properly 

message: Consider how much these changes effect the difficulty of nominating a text page for deletion that needs to be removed.  Now nominators will have to understand that Wikipedia: and other namespaces, that these pages are somehow special (other than being set aside from the main space), that the procedure for nominating is different, and has its own set of templates and different set of instructions to use.  
This potentially creates a procedural obstacle to nominating things for deletion.
Users will have to understand these exceptions to the normal nomination procedure for articles to respect a minority of cases, this is a mess.  So why not use the same procedure for everything.. so that it looks mostly the same to the user, i.e. no matter what kind of thing is 
being nominated for deletion steps I and II are the same -- always 
use a subpage, since it works well -- and make the primary 
distinction which log a debate is listed in?.
Everything being a subpage of the same area. I.E. Pages for Deletion would be used for Images, Templates, etc.  But the discussion page for deleting Image:Blah would appear at Wikipedia:Pages_for_Deletion/Image:Blah.  (And it is the Image:* that distinguishes it).  The nominator would then transclude the subpage in a Wikipedia:Pages_for_Deletion/Log/Image/day, by picking from a menu 
(in Step III) of "what kind of thing" is being nominated for deletion.  And depending on how much traffic an area gets, the main Images for Deletion, templates for deletion, etc pages, would transclude or link recent days.
This would also be more versatile in that it would allow areas that  get a lot of traffic to be further subdivided, i.e. if many biographies are being nominated, then an appropriate option could be added for biographies to Step III for the deletion menu, and they could be split to their own log. --Mysidia (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unify for Simplicity, and more consistency? 

message: I haven't had chance to read all of the discussions in all of the many places they seem to be happening, so this is a sort of meta-comment on all of them. Imho Vfd should be renamed "articles for deletion". We should direct new users to a unified introduction page (Wikipedia:Deletion process perhaps) that explains that different types of page are dealth with differently and note where each is discussed:
:What do you want to nominate for deletion?
:*An article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
:*An image - see Wikipedia:Images for deletion
:*A category - see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion
:*Templates, stub-types, etc see apropriate place
:*A page in the Wikipedia: namespace or something not listed above - see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion
I know this creates a new process, but PfD will be a slow moving, catchall place that will stop debates about user: and wikipedia: namespace pages getting drowned out by the (normally inaccurate) NOOB (none of our business) votes that some VfDs in this namespace currently attract. Any user namespace page nominated for deletion must be accompanied by a note on the user talk: page of the user concerned, e.g. if User Thryduulf/Geonamesongs was nominated for deletion, the nominator must note this on User talk:Thryduulf. Thryduulf 09:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the introduction page you want is Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not the deletion process which deals almost solely with the mechanics of closing a deletion discussion.  Rossami (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The catch-all process you refer to can now be found at WP:NFD --Titoxd 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment/proposal on all the debates over name and inclusion

message: Could an admin with a minute to spare have a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hacked? I've just stumbled across it - it's not linked from any VfD pages. First listed on the 11th - presumably it fell by the wayside in a cleanup without being dealt with. It looks like it reached consensus to delete even without my voting, so probably needs deleted and closed.
Thanks. Shimgray 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Decidedly deleted.  smoddy 23:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks muchly. Wonder how many more of these are languishing out there? Shimgray 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing an old page? 

message: All right, part of the changeover has been completed. WP:NFD is now active (and a discussion about its name is going on in its talk page), so I assume that the move to WP:AFD can now proceed. However, there's a revert war currently underway at . There's a citing of "lack of consensus" but reading all the discussion above, I don't see any objections besides "It's a lot of work", "You're going to mess up the page for a while" and "I don't care." Are there any objections to the move in substance, that haven't been addressed? --Titoxd 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where we are 

message: # Support I cannot express my disagreement more. Do you know how many articles we have in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion namespace? The mind boggles at the amount of work it would take to move the articles - even with a bot things might be missed. A terrible idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No move. Page name should remain "Votes for deletion"

message: # Support. This shouldn't really be a vote, since discussion is very advanced, and the objections to Articles for deletion have been satisfied by the creation of Non-main namespace pages for deletion. Any annoyance during the change is going to be purely temporary, as any major change to any page will prove. --Titoxd 22:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to "Articles for deletion"

message: I could not work out from this list who was in favour of which Proposal, so  please move your opinion to the appropriate Proposal above and if a proposal does not exist which covers your opinion please add it. Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "list" referred to above is the section #Consensus to do anything at all which this section was directly above when I first wrote it. Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think it was one rough move that should have been done differently. Now that it's done though it seems ok, although personally I like "votes for deletion" since its humerous while the "articles for deletion" is rather drab, I must say  Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Is this ever going to get fixed? If not, can we remove the whole section? It's silly to have a section called "week at a view" which only has links to today and yesterday. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be fixing the code for the VFD List... now AFD List sometime this US Labor Day weekend.  Please bare with me. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the state is supposed to be currently, but my bookmarks (and hand-coded URLs) for WP:AFD/Yesterday (which was a hand-change from WP:VFD/Yesterday) appear to have broken; all I get is the 31 August page, even if I purge page cache and/or my own browser cache.  Or is the "yesterday" alias no longer going to be supported? -- MCB 00:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't being updated.  And I'm kind of waiting for everything to settle down a bit before I start reupdating the AFD List. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week at a View 

message: I think even those who mildly disagree such as myself should pitch in a bit in the move, at least to get things more smooth around here (I already took care of redirects etc. for vfd top/bottom templates I think).
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets pitch in anyway 

message: This is just a suggestion, and I am a newbie, so feel free to ignore me...
In the Template at the bottom of this page (Template:AfDFooter), the third step in the table states that contributors should follow a specified link (created by the wikicode "[ this edit link]" (eg [ this edit link]) and add a comment at the bottom of the page.
What I suggest is that, as the page this link points to a page which is specific to that date, to change the format of that page so that the date is not a heading inside it, and change the edit link so that it has "§ion=new" at the end of it (wikicode = "[ this edit link]" eg = [ this edit link]).
This means that, by clicking the link, the contributor is shown an uncluttered, empty, textarea which will then automatically create a new point at the end of the target page. This will also mean that a TOC on the date page will headline each of the items for deletion.
--Lucanos 01:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be faster, but some people might get into the habit of typing the section title in the top, rather than their subpage. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformat of VfD Page 

message: (I'm posting this here because it's more likely that the other users who have been going through and listing orphaned vfds are watching this talk page than the category's talk page, and I hate duplication of labor.)
As of right now, everything listed in this category is either properly relisted on afd, or has a closed vfd discussion with result to transwiki and is listed in the transwiki queue.  The links from the pages also all go to the appropriate afd/vfd discussions (a fair number broke when the link to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ was removed from ).  Newly afd'd articles currently go into :Category:Pages for deletion.
The single exception is Teletraffic quality of service, which I don't know quite what to do with.  Does anyone know its status? —Cryptic (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Pages on votes for deletion]] 

message: How do I close an AfD whose result is "no consensus"? Do I simply treat it as "keep", i.e. close the AfD discussion and remove the AfD notice from the article? Is there any special additional procedure to let people know there was no consensus to keep? — JIP | Talk 16:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its a keep (some admins write "no consensus(default to keep)" but many just write "no consensus"). I guess the only difference is that when you make a note on the talk page you list the result as no consensus rather than keep. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Fernando Rizo has been relisting AfD discussions which have not acquired enough votes for a consensus. For example, he has added a couple of AfDs, which only acquired two or three votes, from September 1 to September 11. Isn't this the same as a result of "no consensus"? I understand that an AfD discussion with only a few votes doesn't have consensus, but I'm getting contradictory advice about what to do with them: effectively treat as "keep" or immediately relist? — JIP | Talk 07:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  By long tradition, "no consensus" defaults to "keep" (but may be renominated without prejudice after a reasonable amount of time).  Discussions which garner few participants, however, are less well decided.  Some admins are uncomfortable closing discussions without some minimum number of people commenting.  Other admins observe that lots of people had the opportunity to join the discussion and chose not to.  They argue that because we're not supposed to vote on everything, the non-participants can generally be presumed to have agreed with the direction the discussion was going (keep or delete).  Having no firm rule, we leave it to the experience and discretion of the individual admin - a judgment to make based on the facts at hand.  Rossami (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I replied to JIP's question on my talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing an AfD with result "no consensus" 

message: Any changes to the page that causes AFD Bot to not work properly should be reported to AllyUnion immediately.  Such problems include: Old pages missing, new pages missing, the creation of new pages are missing, etc.  Thank you for your time and patience. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice about changes to Articles for deletion 

message: CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal during deletion and undeletion debates. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particualrly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD A7 clarification proposal 

message: Would it be an idea to move various old (~2004 and back) deletion debates that are floating around on (sometimes orphanded) subpages around the place to a subpage as AfD instead? For example move Talk:List of people who have publicly denied being gay/Delete to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have publicly denied being gay and such? It would make them easier to find for "novice" users (not all of them link to the article in question), and also satisfy my personal sense of "tidynes" :P Anyway if others think it would be a good idea we could make a little mini project out of tracking these down and moving them into the AfD "central archives". A quick Google search] revealed only 185 candidates with a few false positives, so it should not be a huge task. --Sherool 20:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please list any you find at the appropriate page or archive of Wikipedia:Archived deletion debates.  I'd have no objections if you move them also.  Rossami (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding old deletion debates on talk page subpages 

message: I've an idea for a useful tool for the AFD pages, but I'm not sure if it would work given the daily transcriptions. Is there any way of putting a link at the top of each day's transcription leading to the previous day and next day's lists? it would be very useful if navigating a few days' worth of AFDs (something which I'm sure I'm not the only one to do). Grutness...wha? 06:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful tool - is it possible? 

message: The mountain has been moved! (more or less).  I think the name change to AfD, has been a very good thing, and as far as I can tell, the actual change has gone very smoothly. I think all of the folks who helped to make this happen, deserve a round of thanks and congratulations! Paul August ☎ 16:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Say Amen, Somebody?. Paul August ☎ 03:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll burst into flames if I say that.  However, a hearty pat on the back and some suds all around are in order.  brenneman(t)(c) 03:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok That's more like it, drinks and music. Paul August ☎ 03:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change is good. Good Job to all! 

message: I've noticed that when some nominations are closed very soon after they are listed, it inhibits comments on the nominations directly above them because there is very little space between them and apparently people don't see it or think it's part of the closed nomination. When the top article doesn't get any comments before the bottom article is closed, the problem is even more acute. Can something be changed, so that there is more room between closed nominations? Thanks -- Kjkolb 03:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The template  could have its CSS tweaked so that the margin-top was larger. Right now the margins are all set to 0. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks like someone changed it. Thanks -- Kjkolb 00:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early nomination closure problem 

message: There has been a new template called Template:Articleballot.  This template is supposted to reduce the space taken from all the AfD pages that act as templates on the AfD log. --SuperDude 15:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I would like to suggest a small change to step 2 of the nomination process.  When using the second template for creating the actual consensus gathering page for deletion, I suggest that the template automatically create the first vote from the nominator as an implied delete.  As per recent conversation on the AfD process, the nominator is now usually adding a vote now along with the creation of the page.  It would help keep the look of the pages consistent, and would automate a step that is currently implied anyhow.  An example:
  ~~~~ 
 *Delete per nomination. ~~~~
Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ah, good point.  Well, if it were part of the suggested 'paste this' text from step two, then the nominator would be able to change the nomination before saving.  As the text would remain intact for 99% of the time, this shouldn't impose a burden.  Just a thought.... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *In fact, I created the AfD discussion for Stacy Burke, and voted keep (not abstain) myself. It had been tagged for deletion by User:Necromancing, but he never bothered to write the nomination. As the creator of the article, I had personal investment, and anyway I think Stacy Burke is a notable bondage model. — JIP | Talk 10:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *On reflection, I think you're both right.  I'd like to update the text on the instructions to follow DESiegel's suggestion if there are no objections.  I want to be bold but not crazy for my first edit of a policy page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! android79 21:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checked in this, hope it's ok! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's NOT. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn't mean that it is. Alphax τεχ 14:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  afd2 change 

message: A proposal to expand the scope of VfU is being considered at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU. That proposal has received support from those who commented. The idea is to extend the scope of VfU to include the examination of disputed non-delete outcomes and provide a community-based forum for review of all kinds of deletion debate outcomes.
There is now a further proposal to clarify how the new system will work. Please comment on both aspect at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal, thanks. -Splashtalk 01:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review 

message: Normally when I pick a day whose AfDs to close, most of the discussions on the page have already been closed. This morning, though, I picked September 21, and found that only very few had been closed, and all of those were either speedy deletes or keeps. I closed a few debates starting from the start. Most were deletes, but the debate on the Iraq war thingy was clearly a keep. Then I hit the Jordan Capri debate and thought it was time to slow down, as it is still ongoing. Am I closing AfDs too soon? — JIP | Talk 09:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is entirely within all policy to close debates which have been moved to the old section. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old page says "You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I closing AfDs too soon? 

message: I've not been that long at wikipedia, but I have nominated quite a few pages for removal.  I normally list at a time when they'll be near the top of the daily AFDs to maximise visibility.  Wouldn't it be fairer to have new AFDs listed at the top instead of bottom?  The ones that I've listed at the beginning of the day usually generate more debate and voting. - Hahnchen
*Hmm, that kind of makes sense. People tend to contribute more to the AfDs that are near the top. But after they have contributed to them, new AfDs would move into their place, with the old contributions remaining in place. This would allow a more equal distribution of votes across the various AfD debates. But this assumes that most people start reading AfDs from the top. I sometimes, when contributing to them, start reading from the bottom. When closing them, I start from the top. — JIP | Talk 15:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Suggestion 

message: The AfD page seems to be getting a lot of backlog. There are still some AfDs left from September 18 that haven't been closed. Is anyone closing them? I might close a couple if I can find the time. — JIP | Talk 05:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: I think it's silly. There's always a default comment. For deletionists, it's "per nom" or just "nn". Inclusionists have "wiki isn't paper", "it's not excluded by WP:NOT" or similar. Anyone who omits a reason is just giving a default reason like one of the preceeding. Sure, you can force me to copy/paste default reasons, but is that really achieving anything? It's just wasting my time and yours. If anything, discounting pure votes introduces a bias towards deletionism, since deletionists require only two letters while inclusionists need a bit more effort. ··gracefool |☺ 08:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins who discount votes with no comment/reason 

message: I ran into this page through Special:Random, and there seems to be no notice, and an unclosed nomination. What should I do, just relist it? Titoxd 05:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Era Flair]] 

message: There is no clear outlines of exactly how I do this... -Josquius
:It's a three-step process.
:#Write  at the top of the article and include "AfD" as the edit summary.
:#Click on the resulting redlink, write a three-level header linking to the article name (===Article name===) and your reasoning, sign the page, and save your changes.
:#Edit the current day's AfD log to include . — JIP | Talk 17:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Steps 2 and 3 can also use the templates  and , as explained here.—Wahoofive (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I go about adding a article for deletion? 

message: It's BACK!!! User:AllyUnion/AFD List... Updated hourly as before.  The only thing I have not done with the page is announce in the comments what it has added. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this is quite helpful. Jkelly 05:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the AFD List 

message: This page desperately needs archiving (209K!), all the movement discussion is finished with now AFAICT. The problem is I'm not sure where to put it, since the previous archives are at Votes for deletion. the wub  "?!" 20:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving