Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 1

message: This page looks like it is off to a good start. One element I do disagree with the proposed outline on are talk pages. While in my time here I can't ever remember a talk page being nominated for deletion, it seems logical that such a nomination would go here, rather than at AfD. Talk page deletions are very unusual, and like the deletion of user or policy page, should only be nominated when there is a blatant breech of policy. As with the other pages that will be listed here the article deletion policy gives little guidance on when and why talk pages should be deleted, and talk pages thus similarly require special procedures. - SimonP 02:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
*I agree completely.  -Sean Curtin 23:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
*Since I too cannot remember a talk page being nominated (speedy deletion or simple blanking being the more common routes taken) I think that it really doesn't matter much either way.  As such, I've changed it, but I would be surprised if the issue were to actually arise. Uncle G 01:35:51, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
**I'm sure people said the same thing about WP: namespace pages in the early days of VfD.  Better to be explicit now than to leave things up in the air when the issue comes up.  Looking for VfDed talk pages... there was Talk:Tybalt last June... not common, but it happens.  -Sean Curtin 01:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point here.  Talk pages are usually connected to a real page.  Frequently, those real pages are deleted, and the talk page is left behind.  Sometimes this is intentional, other times is is an accident, and the talk page really should be deleted.  See User:R3m0t/Reports, for instance.  
What subset of the pages listed there should be deleted? In many cases, I think it is extremely important that these orphaned talk pages be deleted, as keeping them causes confusion if a new page is created, and it is unclear that the old talk page refers to a now deleted page rather than the current one.  Other times, it is obvious, and nothing need be done. --ssd 05:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk pages

message: We've done a little work in this area on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting.  See Talk pages for deletion, User pages for deletion, Wikipedia pages for deletion, and the umbrella list Wikipedia-related pages for deletion, which also includes some items from article namespace.
Note that, at this writing, none of these lists are perfectly up to date.  Feel free to help out! -- Visviva 04:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note 

message: It's now 01:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be going forward as a fait accompli, but for the record I really think that more time should have been allowed for reflection.  This page is a Bad Idea.  -- Visviva 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. It removes VFD (AFD) clutter, and it clearly says near the top, "check if your nomination belongs here" in my words. Any really controversial discussion will find its way to the Village Pump, RfC, or other mechanisms, so it won't be a "backwater" as it's been described. At least that's what I think and believe in. --Titoxd 01:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's time 

message: I note that the entries currently on NFd are all still on the VfD pages - is NFD going to become completely separate, or will they stay there (like they do on the deletion sorting-by-topic pages)? Grutness...wha? 02:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Still on V/PfD?

message: I for one very much dislike the name "Non-main namespace pages for deletion". I would prefer "Wikipedia pages for deletion" or "Misc pages for deletion". DES (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't alone there. I pushed for Miscellaneous for Deletion but it seems we settled on this name for now. I imagine it can always be changed, and it isn't THAT big of a deal. --Titoxd 05:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of this page

message: This seems like a reasonable place to ask it... Wikipedia namespace has quite a bunch of "lists of wanted articles" (e.g. Brittanica topics, basic topics, etc). I'm sure some of those have a point, but some others have been composed arbitrarily, and have been completed for 90% or more. It seems to me that there's little point in keeping a "list of articles that we used to want but have already been created", they are mildly misleading, and as an archive they serve little purpose that isn't duplicated by Special:Allpages (barring some exceptions of course, such as the "list of topics each language should have an article for"). Opinions? Should I throw a bunch in here for deletion? Or who cares? Radiant_>|< 12:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
:I've often wondered why those lists don't have items removed as they're created. A bit pointless having lots of blue links on a page for red links (then again, they do paradoxically indicate "these items are listed so that we know not to list them"). Wouldn't it be better to dwindle the individual lists by removing the blue links - that way it'll be obvious when a page should be deleted, because it'll be empty. Grutness...wha? 12:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wanted articles" list 

message: I have a question regarding the scope of this page. There have been several items in article space and category space which, if kept, should be moved to Wikispace. Should these go through the PfD and CfD pages, or brought here? An example is the recently deleted :Category:Wikipedians by generation. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm speaking just for myself here, but I believe that if the offending page is a category, stub template, template, article or anything that has another deletion process defined already, it should go through that process, and then, moved to the Wikipedia: namespace. --Titoxd 03:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of page

message: I think we should have a period of time in which nominations are only discussed, not voted on. This is important because many of the pages listed here require more thought than the usual vanity/non-notable article on VfD. It would allow people to consider more closely the purpose of pieces of policy and avoid a situation similar to the Asch conformity experiment. If a page really needs to be deleted quickly, it can be moved to the main namespace and voted on at VfD. Vacuum c 01:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
*It's all discussion already.  To repeat the mantra: It's Not About The Votes. Uncle G 08:37:26, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
** Perhaps, however, we should explicitly discourage the use of bolded "keep" and "delete" comments.  That might encourage people to take extra thought and to address the core arguments, counterarguments and facts rather than jumping to a conclusion in the first word.  Rossami (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: This is like, the third move we've had! I know, be bold and all, but with this page jumping around like a rabbit, perhaps some discussion is in order first? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
*There's no evidence that Neutrality has read the discussion so far, and the elimination of User, Help:, MediaWiki:, and Portal: pages from the scope of this area had no and has no support in the discussions up until now, with (indeed) explicit objections to that raised in the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion discussion that split this page off in the first place and explicit objections to "Wikipedia namespace pages" pointed out by Radiant! and Grutness above.  So I've put everything back to Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion.  Uncle G 18:28:55, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
:: This page has no mandate, no Community backing. It is in search of a mandate; thus, it is in search of a name. — XiongXiong熊talk* 18:52, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
:::So, are you saying there's no consensus on whether it should even exist? Hmm. Maybe. I think it should, though, because some things out of mainspace are just stupid without being CSDs, and it's best to keep this separate from VFD to avoid nasty argument. ~~ N (t/c) 21:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Xiong, that blanket statement is just plain wrong. The page has backing from the Wikipedia community, if not, there would have been an outpouring of objections to the moving of it. That wasn't the case. In fact, this page is a requirement for Votes for Deletion to be moved to Articles for Deletion. Titoxd 07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF?/Looking for a name 

message: I just tried to close some old discussions and had trouble navigating through the wiki-code to find the right pages.  These notes should go in an instruction page somewhere.  Haven't figured out where yet.
* If no nominations are made to a day-page, the day-page may be deleted as soon as the day is over.
* As with AFD, discussions run for a minimum of 5 days.  
* Please close discussions following the Wikipedia:deletion process.
* When all discussions on the day-page have been closed, cut the day-page link from Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/Current.
* Paste the day-page link in the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Archived deletion debates.
** Be sure to switch the link from transclusion  to regular link foo.
As I think about it more, the page I had trouble finding and which triggered this thought was Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/Current.  Given the low volume on this page, could we simplify the wiki-code and put the day-page links directly in Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion#Discussions rather than re-transcluding them?  Rossami (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on closing discussions 

message: What's the point in having this separate from AfD? There is like three pages proposed for deletion. So much for decreasing AfD traffic.  Grue  18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless? 

message: Could someone please clarify the process to put up something for deletion? I've waded through pages and pages and pages of descriptions why NOT to put something up for deletion, and its still not clear to me HOW. Then i come across this page, which dryly notes: "Create its WFD subpage" and "Add a line to MD". Wtf does this mean? 
For a newbie like me, these pages do little to clarify things, but rather throw me in such a maze of jargon that i almost (un-wikipedically) clicked everything away under the motto: "whatever". Only with considerable effort was i able to produce this lightly annoyed but nonetheless wholehearted attempt at constructive criticism.
Greets, --The Minister of War 11:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure: huh? 

message: Hi. Can we perhaps change this page name to "Miscellany for Deletion" - it would go with the flow of other deletion discussion page names. Cheers!   BD2412 talk 21:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  M"f"D 

message: I have proposed special "closed debate templates" (as I call them) for MfD to replace the continued use of the AfD ones, even after the split from AfD.  Miscellaneous pages are rarely articles, and CfD uses a style similar to AfD but with a different color and wording custom to CfD -- a far lighter blue than the aqua of AfD/MfD.  If created, they will be called   and  , both indicating what they are (and what AfD-related template they will replace).  I have a mockup of a test debate here.  I welcome any and all comments.  Wcquidditch | Talk 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I have mocks for mfd top and mfd bottom as just-created subpages of the mock for the moment, I'll move them and request deletion for the resulting redirect if good.  Wcquidditch | Talk 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I moved them, I'll now start using them. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good... although the AfD versions still pop up here and there. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for special "closed debate templates" for MfD 

message: Given the relatively light load on MFD, I propose that we simplify the page structure to match that of CFD/TFD/RFD/VFU. That is, we don't need a subpage for each nomination, and should simply discuss the matters on the main MFD page, with sections for days added as needed. It is rather pointless to have a bot create a daily empty page, and subpages with such names as "Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Terms of Use of images from PA Photos" are cumbersome at best. Any objections? Radiant_>|< 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to simplify 

message: Before the template namespace was created, pages in the MediaWiki namespace were used for transclusion. However, these old MediaWiki pages are now obsolete and serve no purpose. Recently, a few administrators (including me) have been cleaning them out, but there's still a lot of the outdated pages remaining. Any other administrators want to help out? --Ixfd64 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  old MediaWiki/MediaWiki talk pages 

message: So in an effort to make this page slightly more manageable to edit, I've transferred the front matter of the page to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter, which will make all edits to this page be more about dealing with actual MfD's, and also make looking at the edit window for this page a little cleaner. Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion of Front Matter 

message: I took a Be Bold pill and did some reworking of the Archives. I moved the individual month archives from, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archive debates/March 2006 to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/March 2006. I thought this seemed like a more logical and better sounding name. I also added the year to the 2005 archives since none of them had the year in their title. Then I moved Wikipedia:Archived miscellany delete debates to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates, thereby moving the Archive into a subpage of MfD and also making all of the individual month archives a subpage of that, which has the advantage of putting a nice handly link to both MfD and the MfD Archive page on the archive subpages, which wasn't there in the same way before. Then I cleared out any inbound links to the redirects created by all the moves and deleted the redirects (except for one, that had some odd links coming in that I didn't feel like chasing down). Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job!  What was the redirect, I'll have a look at that if you want. Hiding  talk 11:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh it was one of the sub-month redirects, I'm not sure which. It's whichever one (or two) that I didn't delete. I'll look it up at some point if you don't feel industrious enough to find it, which is fine. Thanks, btw. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one not redlinked on my watch list is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archive debates/December.  The links to that can be amended without problem. Hiding  talk 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: I accidentally placed a test message in a user's (User:Nudimmud) page (blank) instead of the user's talk page. What should I do? Should I list it for deletion? Thanks and sorry for the mistake. Afonso Silva 21:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the page. Eugene van der Pijll 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake

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

message: I have recently been working on cleaning up the Community Portal subpages. On that page I have a list of all 50 subpages, of which more than 20 should be noncontroversialy deleted. Almost 20 more might be deleted, or might be worth keeping. How would I go about requesting 40 pages for deletion, because this would clog up the normal process? Maybe some people should just look at the pages, and comment here for an administrator? Thanks. -- kenb215 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk submission of miscellany pages 

message: Can someone please give me the discussion in which they discussed the deletion of Clan rHrN's page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.122.163 (talk • contribs) 6:48 Aug 8, 2006 UTC.
:From what I can tell, it seems as if the page you linked to, Clan rHrN, was deleted because it was created in the wrong location. All pages about users start with User:. The userpage, User:Clan rHrN was deleted and restored so that offensive remarks in its page history could be removed. -- kenb215 00:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That page was twice deleted, from the deleted content it appears to have met speedy deletion criteria. — xaosflux Talk 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved.  Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages.  Rossami (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, but why is my user page being considered for deletion under this category? Please let me know if this is a mistake or, if not, why exactly this particular user page should be deleted. Lbark 02:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your userpage is not up for deletion, but :User:Xaosflux/UBX/User_religion_flying_spaghetti_monster_not_really is.  This is transcluded on your userpage. --Aude (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just customized the MFD notice on that page with some include/noincludes to help clarify this during the discussion. — xaosflux Talk 02:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My user page 

message: Pursuant to discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and some of the problems noted above, please note that  is now available for userboxes in userspace (and related pages). This is directly analogous to the  that was used when they were in template space, and should be placed within the enclosing div of the userbox/template/etc. It can probably be substituted, but doesn't have to be, and will be easier to excise later if the page is kept if not. If it breaks, fix it or let me know. Cheers. -- nae'blis 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  md1-inline now available 

message: *User:Alyeska has a growing number of deleted articles as user subpages.  No attempt has been made to improve these articles to get them back in the main namespace, so its kind of like using WP as a web host and its sorta like subpages masquerading as articles - so should they be deleted?  Wickethewok 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reasonable period has gone by, they certainly may be nominated for deletion under the terms of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Content review.  Those pages are only to be undeleted on a temporary basis and for specific purposes.  Given the realities of people's external lives, I generally believe that the grace period should probably be measured in months but extenuating circumstances may apply (in both directions).  Rossami (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ah, ok, thanks.  I didn't know if there was policy regarding this or not.  I don't intend on nominating them for deletion, at least at this point, I was just wondering if such material should be removed eventually rather than remain perpetual user subpages.  Wickethewok 17:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One possibility here is to ask the user to simply blank the pages. This keeps a copy of the article in the page history if they ever get around to improving it, but prevents the content showing up on search engines and the like. Carcharoth 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding subpages

message: why is my user page deleted.why is my friend's user page deleted. Moonkid14
:Check the deletion log, here. The reason given by the user Steel359 was that both appeared to be being used as your own personal websites. See Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page? - Jack (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userpage 

message: I tried to list Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground, but found "this article's entry" to be a valid link, as it has already survived a deletion attempt (here). I don't understand why, as it seems to be an inflammatory version of WP:NOTE and partially violates WP:LIVING, besides WP:BIO already exists to deal with the subject. Could anyone help finish the process? Thanks - Jack (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground 

message: I would like to ask an admin to close this discussion snowball keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America  
Another political article, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard got a snowball keep and it had less people wanting to keep: 18 keep 6 delete, versus 28 keeps   and 8 deletes with allegations. Travb (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering that this is the MFD talk page, not the AFD talk page, you may want to make your request on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. BigDT 23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank BigDT. Travb (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SNOWBALL KEEP