Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 10 July 2009

Informing the creators is being ignored

This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Misplaced Pages 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) 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting terms

Um, sheesh, how many ways are there to vote on something? "Delete," "Keep," "Upmerge," "Merge..." the list goes on. Is there a place I can look at all of these, because I aparently am saying one thing when, if I knew there was another option, would say it a different way. I couldn't find anything in the links at the bottom of this page (not the talk page, the project page). Thanks. —ScouterSig 17:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When Deleting May be Vandalism

I recently noticed an article I was about to edite was just deleted and redirected to another article, no warning that I noticed and no merging. I saw no proposed notice of deleting it here. a) is there an archive of these pages so I can check if there was a warning I missed? Not to mention a way of restoring the article if it WAS vandalized. b) I see no mention of such vandalism or archives in this article itself and I can't be the first person who has suspected that vandalism was involved in deleting a page. Any enlightening comments welcome. Some other wiki page I should be looking at for info? Thanks! ;-) Carol Moore 03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Click on its history tab. If you can see a lot of lines of edits, then it was not done by an admin and you can simply revert the redirect. Redirecting is simply replacing the text with #redirect ]. Unless an admin deleted it, you can revert it just like you do with blanking. Of course, start a discussion on the talk page, and search for old discussions in odd places, like WP:ANI, the creator's talk page, (I assume you already checked WP:AFD and its logs) etc. before reverting. If you can't see a history, then an admin did delete it, and you should bring the issue up on their talk page. Sorry if this comment came too late! --Thinboy00 @936, i.e. 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Old XFD" templates

Two things:

• Is adding the template,such as {{oldafd}}, to an article's talk page part of the discussion closing procedure, or is it up to the people who work on the specific article to add it? If it's not part of the procedure, could it be added? There are quite a few articles that don't have the tag, probably just because nobody thought to add it. It is very helpful to be able to point people to/refer to the old debate(s) when someone brings up the acceptability of the article, or if it gets renominated. (Yes, I know consensus changes so it's not a discussion closer, but it is nice to have the history to refer back to).
• Should we bother adding the tag at all if the result is speedy keep? It would seem to me that pages are speedy kept when the nomination was pointless and just a waste of people's times. Therefore tagging the article as being speedy kept really serves no practical purpose aside from record keeping. Additionally many debates that are speedy closed are because the nominator vandalizing/editing to make a point/trolling, so slapping the tag on the debate only serves to keep it going.

- Koweja (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Two answers:

• • Yes, adding {{oldafd}} to an article's talk page is part of the discussion closing procedure. In many cases, the closing admins may simply do this themselves. Any other user may add the template to the talk page.
  • Yes, you should still add the tag if the result is speedy keep. In case of trolling, simply follow Misplaced Pages:What is a troll?#Not feeding the trolls.

Taric25 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

Inspired by a discussion at the policy talk page (Misplaced Pages Talk:Deletion policy), I propose renaming this page to Misplaced Pages:Deletion discussions (that page currently redirects here). I think "discussion" is a more accurate description given WP's consensus-based approach. (Note that the essay already is titled Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Any comments/objections? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A change in wording might not change the actual atmosphere of some deletion discussions, but it can't hurt. I support the proposed rename. Black Falcon 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BF. Not hearing anything else in 3 days, I am going to kick off the move process. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK. No objection here.--Doug. 03:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD

I forgot to list Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heidi Behrens-Benedict for deletion today, and now my computer is acting funny and I cannot add it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 19 for some reason. Can anyone help me out with this? Thanks. --SeinHenker (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Misplaced Pages, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When somebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

• I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

• OR I propose that WP:CFD be renamed Categories and list-articles for discussion in recognition of WP:CLN and the need to treat lists in line with category criteria on WP. Deletion discussion for list articles would then go on HERE.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion

i.e. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Apparatchik (disambiguation)

Thoughts on where disambiguation pages should be discussed? My suggestion would be RFD since they are arguably a type of soft redirect. AFD seems to be the only other alternative as MFD says it's specifically for non-mainspace pages. –xeno 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say WP:AfD as that's the logical choice via namespace, it's the most-watched of the processes, but I don't think it really matters that much. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also say AfD. MfD is clearly not intended for mainspace content, and RfD is intended for (explicit) redirects only.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:39, May 19, 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; the issues involved in deciding whether to delete disambiguation pages (is this page useful? can this function be achieved in another way?) are completely different to those of articles (is this topic notable? is there a conflict of interest?)/ Disambiguation pages are not articles, but are part of the navigational network of Misplaced Pages, along with categories, portals and nav templates. "MFD is for non-mainspace pages" seems rather arbitrary by contrast. MfD should be a catch-all for pages that are not explicitly covered in the other venues.  Skomorokh  16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that MfD is a clear choice ... "Miscellany" sounds a bit more inclusive than "non-mainspace" for sure -- and it is not as though it has hundreds of discussions at a time (the main argment against AfD). Collect (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with Skomorokh's and Collect's reasoning. Let me clarify my comment: MfD, as its usage guidelines stand now, is not acceptable for listing anything from the mainspace (that includes both redirects and dabs). For redirects, we have RfD, for dabs, we have no separate process. Creating a separate process for dabs is probably an overkill (the volume is just too low), which leaves AfD the only viable alternative. However, if MfD guidelines are amended to include dabs, I have no objections to that. Until that amendment is implemented, I would keep insisting that AfD is the only acceptable place to list dabs for deletion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:58, May 19, 2009 (UTC)

Agree that MFD could be expanded if this is the decision, though I still think RFD makes some sense. –xeno 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The last time I nominated a disambiguation page for deletion, it was at AfD. I heard no complaints of that being the wrong place, and I see no reason why that is not the appropriate place, and certainly no reason to create another ?fD type. The article I nominated (which was deleted) was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica), if anyone wants to look at the record of it. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

MfD is the logical choice. The fact that they exist in "mainspace" does not change the fact that they are an entirely different creature - they are not articles and are not subject to the same kinds of expectations. If the MfD guidelines need to be expanded to "allow" disambiguation pages, then so be it; excluding them on the technicality that they exist in mainspace is illogical and is allowing a literal adherence to written guidelines get in the way of a sensible solution. Shereth 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Dab pages, articles and redirects, although all distinguishable from each other, can also all be transformed into one another, so I would argue that they all coexist in mainspace.

I have some sympathy for the idea that a dab page is a "soft" redirect -- especially since I'm thinking the usual disposition of an unneeded dab page will not be to delete it but to convert it to a redirect.--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What if instead of modifying MfD to include dabs we look into modifying RfD guidelines? This way we would have AfD for articles (mainspace) and RDfD (also mainspace) for redirects/disambigs. This would reconcile the idea that a dab is a "soft redirect" with the fact that MfD is not intended for any content located in mainspace. Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:53, May 19, 2009 (UTC)

That's basically what I am trying to say in the initial proposal, though without necessarily renaming RFD: just providing the guidance that disambiguation pages be handled there. –xeno 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the disambiguation project, I would prefer to keep them in AfD as well. So we could have AfD (or ADfD, or MSfD) for articles/disambiguations (mainspace) and RfD for redirects. A dab is not a soft redirect, although it is a navigational page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Dabs are navigational pages, so why still bundle them with articles? Could you, please, clarify on the benefit? It's just that since both redirects and dabs are navigational, it makes more sense (on the surface, at least) to bundle them into one NfD (nav aides for deletion), rather than mix and match dabs with articles and keep redirs separate. Just seeking some clarification here, please.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:09, May 19, 2009 (UTC)

Because dab pages are more like articles (they have content, and often extensive edit histories and editorships) than redirects. If NfDs are set up to be similar to AfDs rather than similar to MfDs, that'd be fine too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢: There's no question that AfD is currently the correct place to nominate these. It's reasonably common for someone to nominate various things at MfD just because they don't quite know what else to do, but dabpages nominated at MfD are an error. However, I think it would be better and more logical to nominate such things at RfD (perhaps with a name change to indicate the proper scope), because they really are closely related; a disambiguation page is much more like a redirect than it is like a (proper) list article, and nothing at all like a vanilla article page. In fact, a common outcome of RfD discussions is to turn some bare redirect into a disambiguation page. In practice, though, such dabpages are rarely nominated, so I don't know that the confusion of a change in procedure is worth it. It may be, however, that the low number of dabpage nominations is the result of current confusion about how to do it, in which case any clear guidance is better than finding things out by experimentation. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm: RfD is more logical as dab pages are like a bundle of soft redirects ... but on the rare occasions when a dab page is proposed for deletion it probably needs the level of attention given at AfD. I'd suggest specifying AfD as the correct place for DfD (Dab page for Deletion) nominations, but ensuring that the documentation there mentions WP:2DAB, the scenario where a dab page has 2 entries, being the primary usage plus one other, where the dab page is "not strictly necessary, but is harmless" ie should not be proposed for Deletion. I don't imagine there are many other dab pages which anyone would want to delete. PamD (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• A quick search indicates that AfD has been by far the most common practice in the past. Indeed, alternatives have been directed there. Unless there is a pressing reason to do otherwise, I see no reason that this precedent should not continue to be followed. Chick Bowen 05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• They come up so little that AFD would seem to be fine. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that MfD is a better approach - disambig pages aren't articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• My inclination is for Afd, as I think disambiguation pages are closer to list articles than anything else, although I would be fine with Rfd as a second choice, given the above valid point that they are somewhat similar to soft redirects. I think Mfd would be clearly inappropriate for anything in mainspace.--Aervanath (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think disambiguations should be at AfD. They are much more like content than the stuff listed at MfD, so there are completely different rules that come into play. And like an above editor said, disambiguatioons often have extensive histories and a number of editors. Mm40 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• AFD, per many arguments above. They're in article space, so that rules mfd out, and they aren't redirects, so that rules out rfd. Personally, I'd merge rfd with afd and mfd as well, because an rfd can sometimes be an afd that nobody has noticed. Hiding T 13:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC

There is an RfC underway that proposes to amend CSD to allow for greater use of administrative judgment. (There was also a (long) discussion at the CSD talk page that led to the RfC.)   M  23:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fledgling Jason Steed

I recreated this page today, with new information about a book deal+agent deal+award, but it was deleted without explanation. No discussion, no AFD, nothing. It can be seen here: I tried to have a discussion with the admin who deleted it, but he just seemed to mock the agent who had signed up the book. What can I do?--Beehold (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with new article

I just wrote an article about one of my favorite writers, Rob Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jarhed/Rob_Long). I notice that articles with that title have been deleted several times. I would like to make sure this article is not going to be deleted before I post it. Does anyone have any suggestions?Jarhed (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yours should be fine. The previously deleted articles were not about the writer and stumbled over other WP guidelines and policies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Article posted at Rob Long (TV producer). Thank you for your time.Jarhed (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on adding close date and time

I noticed that RfA/RfB items have the: "Scheduled to end hh:mm, dd Month 2009 (UTC)" line on those items. How would you folks feel about adding something similar "Scheduled to close: hh:mm, dd Month 2009 (UTC)" added to the XfD items? I'm not saying change any rules, remove snow closes, disallow speedy keeps or anything - just something to give the closers an idea of when the 7 days would be finishing up. — Ched :  ?  14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• doesn't really matter to me, I just thought it might help out the folks that close these things on a regular basis. — Ched :  ?  14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• An excellent idea, but polls are evil. :) –Juliancolton |  14:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think it is both unnecessary and possibly confusing:
  1. It is unnecessary since XfD's are already grouped by date posted, and they all run 7 days, so it is pretty trivial to figure out when they close.
  2. It may be confusing as under the current procedure, unlike RfX's, XfD's do not run for X number of days since posting, but can be closed on the given date, so an AfD posted at 23:59 will actually be able to be closed a full day earlier than one posted at 00:01.

  -- Avi (talk)

  I'm not so sure about that, actually; several people have noted as of late that it's an issue when I close discussions even an hour early. –Juliancolton |  17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• As Juliancolton said, voting is evil so I've removed the arbitrary Support/Oppose subheaders and left just the comments.
  My own opinion mirrors Avraham's that this is unnecessary complication and template-bloat. Keep the process as simple as possible. Rossami (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Not needed imho (see above) but then again, not everyone knows how long XFDs are open, do they? So it might be a useful idea for new users, especially since it's pretty easy to add in (just add a subst: date + 7days to the AFD preload template) and will not really clutter the page up. As for Avi's reasoning, I am not sure that is how it's correct per policy. At least I have never closed a normal XfD before it was open for more than 7 days (or 5 days back then). And WP:AFD for example says "are debated for at least seven days" (emphasis added), so I do not think that they really do not run for 7 days after being opened. To me at least the policy seems to put emphasis on the fact that this is indeed the case. Regards SoWhy 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, they run for "at least seven days." Which means that an article listed on the January 1 page at 2359 is eligible for deletion on Jan 9, whereas the one posted two minutes later on Jan 2 at 0001 is not eligible for deletion until Jan 10. Any AfD on page X is considered Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old on X+8; not 168 hours after being posted. -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, sorry, I must have misunderstood your statement then. Still, Ched's idea could be implemented using a wording like "This XFD was opened at X Xxx 2009 YY:YY (UTC) and will run at least until Z Zzz 2009 YY:YY (UTC)" imho. It would sure make it easier for new users to see how long an XFD runs and when it was opened. Regards SoWhy 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• VFD shouldn't be held by stringent time deadlines — they should be based on how the discussion turns out. For most cases, seven days is a good time. Sometimes they need more time, sometimes you can cut them off early because the consensus is clear. I recently did this with an MFD where I recommended redirecting in lieu of deletion, and the nominator and everyone since agreed. Nothing wrong with posting a "Expected date of closure: 00:00 1 August 2017" or something like that, but we need to not observe it is as formal time of closure. Also, it's not all that necessary on MFD, since MFD distinguishes between MFDs that should be closed and MFDs that should not necessarily be closed. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And there is the "relisting" issue as well. RfX's will close as no consensus; XfD's without consensus may be relisted for another week. -- Avi (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would support adding a "open+7 days" time notice in some form to AfDs, as I think far too many AfDs are closed before 7 days and a little reminder of when exactly 7 days is would be potentially helpful in curbing this "rush to close" mentality.

• Comments First, my apologies for the !vote thingie. I've probably been reading too many "Jimbos future role in civility of arbitration of paid editing ...." AGHHH ... Make it stop! Anyway, I find it interesting that those of you experienced in this area are familiar with the "spirit" of the "7-day" guide to closure. (ok, admitedly WP:DP is policy). I think that too often less experienced editors tend to read too much into the "words" and not understand the "intent" of closing things. In my opinion, something closed an hour or two early that hasn't been commented on in two days, or something closed an hour or two late with "recent" comments, simply isn't going to break the wiki. What prompted this question from me was an item where I saw an editor chastised for closing a few things a bit earlier than the exact "7-day" opening posting. Now, since the wording is "The discussion lasts at least seven days..", I thought it might be helpful to have a "time and date" item on the XfD items, simply to avoid any misgivings, without having to "click history", "click earliest", and "note the time the XfD went live". Just a FYI as to where this suggestion originated. — Ched :  ?  23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)