This is an archive of past discussions for the period 1 October 2009–31 December 2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've modified the code of ((mfd top)) to no longer auto-include the signature. It was causing issues with those used to using the standard ((subst:_fd top)) '''Result''' --~~~~. For consistency (and backward compatibility), the templates should not auto-include a signature. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur, for the sake of consistency. @harej 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was getting really sick of having to delete my duplicate signature. –xeno^talk 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this made it so User:King_of_Hearts/closemfd.js no longer signed closes. Admins who were used to using the template suddenly found themselves forgetting to sign their closes. I've added it back as a parameter |y as it is in the tfd, this way the closing script can be modified to incorporate this parameter.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would a registered user please complete the MFD for this user page? It appears to be some sort of list of terms that doesn't appear related to editing WP. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Sorry it's a month late. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Another page for a registered user to complete step 2. Appears to be used as a web host, or something. Page already tagged, step 3 complete. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• No need; the page was speedily deleted already. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A thought, tentatively,
Maybe MfD should be oldest at the top?
New entries go at the bottom. Old entries float to the top.
This is how we write (the oldest text at the top, newest at the bottom). This is intuitive. The current setup is counter-intuitive.
This is how we structure talk pages, and notice boards.
It would mean that when systematically going through MfDs in a normal way (top to bottom), you go through them chronoloigcally. This means that when you come upon a related series of MfDs (as happens), you deal with existing comments before happening on to a realted MfD that doesn't have comments (because comments there would be redundant).

Downsides (Add your own):

1. To see the latest entries, you have to go to the bottom. (but why should you read the entry from 1 minute ago before you read the entry from 10 minutes ago?).
2. MfD has worked this way for a long time, and old regulars don't like changes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Makes it harder to easily segregate backlog. –xeno^talk 17:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Would make set-up different from AfD, CfD, and all WP logs that show user edits/recent changes with newest listed first. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm willing to give this a try and think it would be a net improvement. One reason I think it would work here is that unlike AfD, MfD doesn't rely on relisting as much to start with since we are all on one page. If the oldest were at the top, we could probably dispense with relisting altogether, because older things would be more likely to draw comments. Gigs (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• My intuition and your intuition are at odds. I find the present build just fine, intuitively speaking. This is completely subjective. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I think many editors who regularly visit MfD prefer to see the ones they haven't already seen at the top, rather than having to scroll down every time to find the newest ones. Personally, I think it's like the Help Desk - I go to the link directly through my watchlist (clicking on the → link), and then move up to read any other questions I've not seen recently. When I'm going to the MfD page, I tend to click on the → link anyway, so I'd be amenable to a change - but I'm also OK with the current way. So I guess that's a neutral from me! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I actually find the current set-up more intuitive because it conforms with the way WP logs structure information—with the most recent changes at the top. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'd be interested to see it tried that way, maybe because I'm a frequent closer the idea of having the oldest stuff at the top makes particular sense to me. Maybe we could set up a duplicate MfD page to see how it would look. Since unlike AN, ANI, etc, all of our discussions are transclusions of other pages, we can get away with that quite easily. Besides if we place the link for the test page here; the percentage even of regulars who will see it is tiny, so there is little concern about confusion. Try it. Who know, if we like it, the other XfDs might get jealous! It would be nice though, if after a very brief explanation we went straight to the TOC and then the first entry, rather than all that junk we've got on how to file; still TFD is worse with the instructions above the TOC. I mention that because by the time I've scrolled through all of that stuff I have no patience for scrolling further and just go to the TOC anyway. Maybe move the instructions to a subpage and just link to them as we do with the closing instructions (only not so small of course)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've modified King of Hearts closing script to accommodate the changes to tfd top mentioned above at #Slight_change_to_.7B.7Bmfd_top.7D.7D. My updated version can be found at User:Doug/closemfd.js. I'm planning to add a second dialog for the closing admin's reason for the close decision soon.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#XfD logs. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_23#XfD_logs. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason that we've eliminated the date headers from the old business (now called backlog)? I disagree with this change. It is very useful for a closer to be able to see from the TOC exactly how old the old discussions are. (By the way, I disagree with calling it a backlog, frequently debates may be left open beyond 7 days due to ongoing discussion, these are not backlogged, they've simply passed the default debate period).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now changed the "Backlog" to "Old business". The reason why there hasn't been date headers was simply out of convenience for the bot. I will work to put them back in. @harej 04:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. @harej 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: ... I do not believe that notification is mandatory (whether it should be is a valid topic for discussion on a larger scale), ... 07:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if the relevant text were bigger?

<big>If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, '''notify them''' on their main talk page</big>. <br />For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil...

I note that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter has few watchers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is only one actual solution for the "But it is not mandatory" argument. Tell the people closing that lack of notification should be weighed as a strong argument for Keep in itself, with any balance of argument being settled in favor of it. The sole effect of lack of notification is prevention of the person being able to make an early reply in the deletion thread -- which is rather a "negative CANVASS" in order to allow a WP:False consensus to be found (late edits may be unable to sway the earlier !votes). Collect (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While I do agree that users should almost always be notified when a page in their userspace is nominated for deletion, I don't see how lack of notification could count as an argument. I could support relisting MfDs of userspace pages where notification did not take place in some circumstances, but dismissing or overriding a reasoned argument to delete on the grounds that the user was not notified is a bit too extreme for me (especially in cases where the user is inactive and unlikely to participate in any discussion).

In my opinion, the best way to ensure that users are always notified is to continue to raise this issue in MfDs were it is overlooked (as I notice SmokeyJoe often does) and to take the initiative to notify users personally. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. I tried to nominate Talk:How much do photographers get paid for deletion, as it appears to be pure vandalism and there isn't even an article to discuss. I tried to nominate it, but something went wrong, and there was only a redlink, no new section. Would someone mind adding the request for me? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 02:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted this as a test page, criterion G8 can also apply, so don't worry about a debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:User page#Long-term archival of articles in userspace. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion that involves three current MfD cases is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Codify_a_timeline_for_stale_userspace_drafts Gigs (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since AfD operates in a manner where IP editors request help for step 2 completion on the AfD talk page, and MfD uses the same structure, I thought I'd try the same thing here. (if someone doesn't move it first at WP:RM uncontroversial)

I created an MfD subpage at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake/Archive 1 since I can only create talk pages, not main pages. To complete my nomination, it needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Humanitarian response to the 2010 Chile earthquake/Archive 1.

Can someone help me out on that? Thanks. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Looks like it was done for you by User:Tim Song. --RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to extend the WP:PROD process to cover Wikipedia-Books. This concerns MfD, since the goal of BPROD is to allow for the uncontroversial deletion of books without burdening MfD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Books burden MFD? harej 23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutley. See all those books in MfD? See?!? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose the creation of Wikipedia:MediaWiki pages for deletion for all the MediaWiki namespace pages that clog MFD on a regular basis. harej 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Screwed up the Nom can someone Fix it?Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm in the wrong place to discuss this, but it seems to me that every hidden page brought here is deleted. IS it time, perhaps, that a precedent was set? It seems pointless and a waste of space that every single one is being brought here for deletion. Maybe we should have a "delete-on-sight" policy? CSD category? Any other suggestions? Any disagreements? General observations? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!)

• A better place to discuss this would be WT:UP. No, every hidden page brought to MfD has not been deleted. Yes, it is pointless (or rather pointy) to keep doing the same non-productive thing over and over again. Given the lack of obvious consensus on this issue, it is definitely not a candidate for a new WP:CSD criterion; read the information at the top of WT:CSD.
• It would be more productive to debate this as a policy suggestion at WT:UP, with the first aim being to get hidden pages mentioned as on of the things forbidden in userspace. I think opinion has swayed in this direction, but if you don't worry about the few acceptable "hidden" pages, and what to do about false positives to any detection method, then the damage might outweigh the good.
• Before proceeding with an attempt to outlaw hidden pages, please read and address User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages. Some people despise hidden pages, and they and others are prone to kneejerk reactions, and these produce kneejerk counter-reactions. I think you are right, but it is not enough that you are right. You have to bring the community with you, which means you have to involve them. This is what it means to be a community managed project.
• What I think you want to do is add more teeth to the existing text at WP:UP#GAMES

Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project.

, although to get a clarification that will be recognised by future MfD participants, I think a WT:UP subpage on the topic of hidden pages with a clear proposal that survives a WP:RFC is required. I think that there are many more committed wikipedians who have participated in secret pages games than there are committed wikipedians complaining about them, and this makes it very hard for a small number to declare a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen quite a few secret pages on MFD in my day. There is indeed the rare occasion that a secret page will be kept. For that reason the current approach works, even if it makes us do a little bit more work. harej 23:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, have seen most MfDs about secret pages get closed as delete. The consensus in a number of the MfDs about secret pages I started has been heading towards keep though because the participants either are hosts of secret pages or search for them.

SmokeyJoe, I agree with your suggestions above. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your input guys. I guess consensus isn't quite stable enough in regard to these pages yet. Current system's not perfect, but I suppose it'll do for now, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Really why are we worrying about a few (thousand) "secret" pages in userspace? Unless there's a runaway problem there are more important tasks,like the fairly modest 8,000-ish articles at Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

  That there are more important tasks does not mean that the less important ones should be ignored. It is quite obvious that these pages are self-reproducing in that every time someone comes across them they feel inspired to waste their own time on userspace games. Discouraging this does require them to be taken to XfD. At long last the trend appears to be turning against them, which is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  Precisely. If it were felt worthwhile, we should ask for a new namespace to be created so users can have a space to express themselves, free from people bothering them about an encyclopedia. However, that is not going to happen because we do not want to encourage a MYSPACE view. Tolerating the ever-growing collection of off-topic pages is not helpful, and will only see their proliferation. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  We have a namespace for users to express themselves. It's the User namespace. I do not have a problem with users having a moderate amount of fun there but yes people should not get carried away as the "secret page" phenomenon encourages. harej 02:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hmmm, then why does WP:UP say Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site and its user pages are provided mainly for project purposes.? Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  Meaning you cannot use the Wikipedia primarily for that purpose. If you're a constructive user then the least we can do to make editors feel welcome is to let them have a little bit of fun -- something simple like a nice-looking user page. Again, nothing on the scale of secret pages or games. We're not robots; even factories give their workers breaks. harej 05:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  The "primarily" part is too frequently used as an excuse for editors who have obviously contributed notably to the project to ignore the userspace guidelines. Users should be treated equally. Nobody is proposing that the userspace guidelines be significantly tightened, just that the existing rules are actually followed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we create a template for the section headers, which contains not only the formatted date, but also anchors, so that a static link will work, no matter what the user preferences are. For example:

===((#formatdate:2009-12-08))((anchor|2009-12-08|December 8, 2009|8 December 2009|2009 December 8))===

This way the date header will still be formatted as many prefer, but will also have the functionality to be able to link to a specific date from a separate page. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is very much possible. Not that I want to be an obstructionist, but I will need to add that support for my bot before it can be done on any lasting basis (since my bot generates the day headers). Which I will do only if there is a consensus that we should do this (or at least a silent consensus). @harej 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any recommendations for the name of the template? I haven't seen any other templates for this type of thing that we could follow the naming scheme of. Maybe ((MfD day))? MrKIA11 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't really need a template; since the day headers are auto-created anyway, we can just put the above syntax on the page. @harej 23:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I just thought that that wouldn't look very good over and over again. And this way if the header is ever changed, you don't have to change your bot. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done @harej 07:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to change Twinkle so that the date headers it outputs reflects this new format. That's easy to do, of course, but I'd like some input first. First question, is this functionality really important enough? We can deal with fixed date formats AfD logs and elsewhere, I'd think that we can manage here, too? The convenience of some editors seeing formatted days in their preferred way (and I seem to remember that only a minority has even set the required preferences) is bought with the additional source and edit summary clutter and broken section anchors in the page history (try clicking the section link in this history entry.
So: Do we really need this in the first place?
If we do, I'd certainly go for a template to at least reduce the clutter, and give us an easier time to keep bot and script output in synch.
Amalthea 18:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was implemented on request, and it can just as easily be rescinded on request. Consensus changes after all, and it does not matter to the bot what the date headers look like (syntax-wise) as long as there is something there. harej 20:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote the bug, but I did it solely did it for consistency. I'm not too keen on using the headers like this. The usage of #formatdate is discouraged in articles, AFAIK; I recognize this isn't an article, so it could be done here, but I don't really like it like this. Trivial things like this shouldn't change for some users, as I think this confuses more than it helps. For example, the thing with the section links that Amalthea noted, and for example it might happen that someone refers to a "16 May 2010" section that another user with a different setting doesn't find. And the only real advantage that I see would be that some users who care that much for a specific date setting see it their way. So, I would definitely change it back to the simpler formatting. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD and CfD link the logs with a plain "17 May" title. TfD, RfD, SfD, IfD all use plain section headers like "May 17". I'd say we go for conformity and do that, too: "===mmmm d===".
Any other opinions or objections? Any other scripts or bots that need to be changed? I for one would change the archived debates accordingly, but that requires a one-time effort to change the existing headers. Amalthea 14:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's do it. I'll wait until the bot is modified so that it can accept a plain title, and will then change Twinkle to emit that right away. Amalthea 10:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done but in the form of "F j, Y" (eg September 03, 2006), without linking. I had to include the year because it would otherwise be impossible for the bot to archive the MFDs. harej 19:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a relative newbie at adding items to MfD. I tried one a few weeks ago using twinkle, and it seemed to work. I tried one a few minutes ago, here and it sure doesn't look right. I tried adding section headings, but still a mess. Any thoughts on what I did wrong?--SPhilbrickT 22:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. When you transclude pages to WP:MFD, you don't need to enclose the link with headers. Cunard (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 01:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started a thread at VPP about creating a new criterion for speedy deletion involving the use of userspace for keeping track of game pools. A look through our current MFDs makes me think that folks here might have an opinion on that. Your views would be welcome. Matt Deres (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was checking this new user out, and noticed their Userpage is in Chinese

Query 1) Is this normally allowed?, as I welcomed and also gave them a ((subst:uw-english)) for non English posting.)

Back to the point, I Google translated the page and it is unambiguosly promotional. The username is part of one of their web addresses, has contacts: phone, e-mail, website etc.

"Of actuators, linear drives, linear motors, linear motor, massage chair drive, care bed drives, industrial drives, linear actuator, solar tracker, HT Series Electric putter is a powered device, its installation is not the terrain . Distance constraints, are replaced by hydraulic, pneumatic products ideal for saving energy, but also through the microcomputer control, easy to automate. Existing furniture, chairs, drive various equipment used mainly for manual operation, use a lot of inconvenience. To this end, the utility model to solve the problem of linear actuator can be used in aircraft, ships, luxury car rear takeoff and landing and with the massage chair, massage table, fire equipment, medical equipment, furniture and so on. Linear push-pull, stretching purposes. I produced a compact linear actuator design, beautiful appearance, a simple, easy to install. Our company is a professional manufacturer of linear drive. Business philosophy, the overriding quality, service weightier than Mount Tai Chong purpose. Linear drive size, specification is in accordance with customer requirements. Actuator stroke: 25 - 1000 mm, electrical 12 - 24 - 36V of the, 4 - 25 mm / sec, 75 1000 kg load current of 0.2 - the first section 9A, the sound of 50 dB.
Wenzhou Hao Fan Electric Co., Ltd.
Sales Department: Lee Phone: 86 - 577 - 86628697 Fax: 86 - 577 - 56854556 Mobile: 013 819 747 003
Website: Website: Http: / / www.wzsdq.cn
Website: Website: Http: / / www . wzsdq.com
Website: Website: Http: / / www.wzhfdq.com
E-mail: wzhfdq@gmail.com "

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wzsdq"

Query 2) Also, can I nominate such pages as CsD, as that seems to be only for Articles, not userpage/talkpages? Many thanks!

--220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 02:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to nominate the above, but it's n ot showing up on the project page. I wonder if a smarter person than me might rescue the situation? Anthony (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Sorted Anthony (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, OK. I know WP:UP discourages secret pages. However, every time one is nominated and the user percentage of userspace edits is under 30, the result is NO CONSENSUS. So, I beg everyone here not to nominate people's secret pages if the percentage of their userspace edits is under 30, unless the person has under 30 edits. Otherwise it's just a big waste of time. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that MFD is a perfectly acceptable venue to discuss portions of pages (example), but some users have disagreed. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—there's really absolutely no practical reason not to. It's convenient. So let's do it. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• I think in general it's not, but in this case (pseudo-userbox) it may be as good as anywhere else. Hobit (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• I disagree. XfD pages are a relatively formalized process that exist to discuss things which require use of the deletion tools, are hard to undue for the average editor, and therefore warrant a certain level of red tape. "Is this comment appropriate?", by contrast, is a matter for a community forum like the AN or VP, not for a process. --erachima talk 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  The present case is a userbox which normally go through MFD; but since the userbox is hard coded onto the page, the page itself was nominated with the focus on the userbox. –xeno^talk 22:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  Userboxes go through MfD because they are their own pages. In this case, there's no need for the process because there's no software element involved. You are creating a terrible precedent by using a bureaucratic process where it is completely unnecessary. --erachima talk 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  Please show me a better venue to discuss a pseudo-userbox. –xeno^talk 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  The same place you would discuss any other inappropriate comment on a userpage that wasn't wrapped in little colorful span tags: WP:AN WP:ANI. --erachima talk 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  We'll have to disagree on that: WP:AN is for "issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest". MFD allows a discussion to occur in an organized fashion, with a set time period, where an uninvolved administrator will show up to close it at the end of the discussion. –xeno^talk 22:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  Typo. --erachima talk 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  ANI is not well-suited for this either, per my comments above ("disorganized clusterfuck" comes to mind). However, if consensus goes the other way on this, I suppose I'll have to stop referring ANI discussions that discuss miscellany on userpages to MFD... –xeno^talk 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  On the contrary, ANI is perfectly suited for it. All that's necessary in 90% of cases like this is for someone to give the editor causing the problem (or both editors causing the problem) a reasonable talking-to, and ANI is very good at doing that in a timely fashion. --erachima talk 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  This is an on-the-fence case where there was no immediately apparent "answer" - that's why I referred to MFD for an organized discussion. –xeno^talk 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  (e/c) But the discussion has to occur somewhere; why is here worse than anywhere else? At least people are used to this kind of discussion here. I tentatively share some concern about the more general precedent, but this seems a reasonable place to have this kind of discussion on an ad hoc basis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Per Hobit; I'd hate to create a precedent without thinking thoroughly about what other "portions" of pages could be nominated, but it makes perfect sense to do it for pseudo-userboxes (since actual userboxes are handled here all the time). If it helps, imagine that there's a userbox page with the same content, that this MFD is about the imaginary userbox, and if the imaginary userbox is deleted, per WP:COMMONSENSE, we wouldn't allow users to simply hard-code the box on their page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support In many cases, such as the userbox one, where MfD would be appropriate if the userbox were a separate subpage, it can be used as such. I can't really think of a way this would not be a benefit in determining consensus. —fetch·comms 22:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The supports here all appear to be based on the logic that a non-userbox which resembles a userbox should be put on MfD, as if there was something inherently special about userboxes. This strikes me as completely backwards, userboxes only get put on MfD in the first place because it is necessary since they are formatted as their own pages.
  In conclusion, we don't discuss article text on Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion just because it's placed in a table, we shouldn't discuss userpage text on Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion just because it's formatted to resemble a userbox. --erachima talk 22:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  I still don't see why not. Your reason above was that MFD is a "relatively formalized process that exist to discuss things which require use of the deletion tools, are hard to undue for the average editor, and therefore warrant a certain level of red tape" By the same token, discussing whether we should prohibit a certain portion of a userpage may require the user of tools (page protection or blocking, should the user refuse to concede to a consensus to remove). Your suggested alternative is WP:ANI; however ANI is typically reserved for matters requiring immediate administrator attention: a dispute over the appropriateness of a (pseudo-)userbox hardly cuts the mustard. –xeno^talk 22:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There has already been an ANI Thread for this UserBox and the consensus was that it was harmless and that MFD was preferable venue Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  Should be noted that I was the one who closed that ANI thread referring it to MFD, so let's avoid that feedback loop. –xeno^talk 22:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, but not perfectly, only in the absence of a better venue and such debates not overwhelming MfD. MFD is a acceptable venue to discuss portions of pages, where the portion, if it were the whole page, would render the page deletable by MfD standards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Not support. I can see the arguments for this specific case, but it is likely to be a dangerous precedent. I do not think we should be regularly using MfD or any other XfD to delete parts of pages. I would prefer that this specific disucssion on an embedded userbox be held elsewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• We already do this. And we already can. There's long established precedent for placing pages up for MfD due to a part of their content, and for !voters to opine conditionally based on the presence or absence of that content. "MfD for part of a page" is no different from "MfD for a page", and does not need any particular consideration separately. But yes, we should continue to allow MfD based on objections to one part of the page contents, as we do already, and no, we shouldn't impose new procedures on that. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not recall these precedents. Could you give us several examples? --Bduke (Discussion) 00:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jw21/deUBdomain/notnarrow alt, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sinhala freedom/Userboxes/corruption are examples of pages that were kept only by dint of their having been revised to community expectations during the discussion, and there are others. I am aware (because I participated) of some discussions more immediately comparable to the Current Unpleasantness, involving demands to remove userbox-style formatting from a page in order for the page to remain, but multiple search strategies have failed to turn these discussions up. Nonetheless, you can see the basic principle involved: the community can require specific presentational details on pages as a condition of keeping them. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• What do support and not support mean? I believe that using MFD to delete parts of pages is a bad idea. I don't see any difference between (1) filing an MFD to remove userbox code from a userpage, (2) filing an AFD to remove text from an article, and (3) filing any other XFD to remove part of any other page. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support would mean that one supports the idea that Mfd discussions can be used for portions of pages; as such, you'd fall under "not support". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, what "support" and "not support" really mean is that people come to discussions erroneously thinking that their only potential mode of contribution is to place their marks in a voting box. Uncle G (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• I support the idea that portions of pages can be placed up for discussion at Mfd for pages in the userspace only. I would've given my full support, if it wasn't for Nyttend who spurred my thinking. When a user thinks that a portion of an article, template, or something of that sort should be removed, the discussion would normally occur on the talk page of that page; users who are interested and/or watching that page provide input, and a rough consensus is established through discussion there. That is because such pages are a collaborative effort. As Nyttend implies, one wouldn't open up an Afd discussion for a section of an article; they would start a discussion on the talk page of that article. Pages in the userspace, on the other hand, are more personal, and are not the work of the Wikipedia community; they are not collaborative like the rest of Wikipedia. When a user thinks part of a userpage should not be there, where should they go? Going to the talk page of a page in the userspace is a bit odd to me, per my reasoning that userpages are more personal and non-collaborative - plus, no one's watching them (possibly). As such, bringing such discussion here would be appropriate IMO. As SmokeyJoe says, portion-of-pages-for-deletion discussions should occur "only in the absence of a better venue"; in all cases, I think the talk page is the better venue except for userpages, in which an Mfd discussion is the best option. All other pages that fall under miscellany, such as pages in the "Wikipedia" and "Help" namespaces, should have any discussion regarding parts of their content being removed placed on their respective talk pages. One could say, "Well, Mr. Smarty-Hamster-Pants, why shouldn't discussions for the entire page themselves take place on the talk page of the page, per your reasoning?" The problem with that is that talk pages are deleted after their respective articles are deleted (I just said that in case anyone brings that up). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Meh, depends on the situation. If it is per consensus a portion of content be removed, let it be so. If it is particularly controversial, might consider an MfD. If it is in userspace and user objects, then an MfD would probably not be necessary. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem Fixed

I move the hardcode to a subpage and then deleted the hardcode off my userpage and instead made it like every other userbox. I also moved associated MFD to be over the deletion of the Subpage. There problem solved!Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Great - though this discussion may still prove useful (or at least insightful) when it comes to scenarios like this in the future; I don't think the point of this entire discussion is to solely settle the dispute regarding your page, but rather, to establish some sort of a guideline for the future. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Can anyone explain why Wikipedia has a procedure for dealing with such matters that seems to me quite bizarre? If a user has something unacceptable on their user page, why can't the powers that be, or consensus, or whoever, simply remove it & warn them they'll be blocked if they keep restoring it? Why go to the strange step of deleting the page? Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• editing to clean it up is definitely an option to take. Often this will leave a blank page. If the page is very harmful it is better not to have it in the history though. The discussion however determines what a consensus is, and it can then be enforced, whereas editing may result in a edit war. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition, sometimes it's not clear what is and what is not inappropriate; sometimes the best option is the launch a discussion to establish that consensus you speak of. There are many things that are in the grey that some people think should not be there, and others that think it is fine. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We don't have a procedure for this. The normal way of handling it is precisely what you have described. MfD with respect to userpages is generally used only for things like "this guy has been keeping a copy of a deleted article for 18 months without changing it", this is a novel situation. --erachima talk 18:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Rubbish. We have a well established procedure for this, and this is not a novel situation at all. Good grief! Do you really think that this is the first time that someone hasn't liked what someone else has placed on xyr user page, in all the years that Wikipedia has been going? People have been boldly editing one another's user pages, and using user talk pages to hash out such issues with other people, for years, now. "Could you please remove or refactor that part of your user page?" is not a particularly hard sentence to type. We've even had dispute resolution, for when that first step fails, for years, too. Indeed, we further had a wide debate about potentially inflammatory and divisive badges on user pages, spanning CSD criteria, Deletion Review, Requests for Comment, the mailing list, and multiple noticeboards, and lasting a fair while. Uncle G (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
        • If you take a closer look at my comments on this matter, you are very vehemently agreeing with me. The "novel situation" is that someone tried taking a page to XfD to settle a content dispute. --erachima talk 05:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Ah! I see. I had a different antecedent for "this". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that there's a problem with Twinkle AND a minor One bot bug, the date headers will become quite a mess... Kayau Voting IS evil 05:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody complete step two for this nomination? As an IP editor, I am unable to create pages. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors involved with MfD may wish to comment on my recent proposal at the Village Pump. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Miscellaneous PROD. Any input would be welcome. Thanks.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the proper procedure to undo a mistaken MfD. I looked in the main page, perhaps I missed it. Absent clear instructions, I rolled back the notice, struck out the user page message and added an apology; now I assume I can close the MfD section, but I don't know how to do that. Is there a set of instructions somewhere?--SPhilbrickT 13:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've closed it for you. Closing instructions are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions, which is linked from the main MFD page in the top right hand corner, though it isn't very prominent. Hut 8.5 15:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 14:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably need to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Baseball Bugs/hidden (2nd nomination). The page's creator has removed the MFD notice from the page actually nominated (in an edit marked as both minor and a copyedit), renamed the nominated page, and placed the MFD notice on a different page. This is one of the unstated subtle parts of my question that I'm hoping that Ron Ritzman will spot. Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A deletion notice should be placed at the top of ALL pages listed for deletion in a nomination, not just the first one. Can the instructions be changed? -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This request is likely prompted by the MfDs I initiated. I generally only tag the first userpage for each different user included in a deletion nomination. The reason was that this saves time. An MfD notification on the creator's talk page and an MfD tag on one of the pages nominated for deletion seemed enough. Because this procedure is deemed problematic, I will tag all the pages I nominate for deletion from now on. My only exception will be if there is another MfD nomination on the scale of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dantheu2man/The Odd Subpage/may/pages/lucky/pages/off/will/clicking/closer/soon/Wikipedians, where 84 pages of the same type were nominated for deletion. Is that okay? Cunard (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much! -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see here for a proposal to reinstate proposed deletion for userspace under certain circumstances. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a large number of discussions on User:Geo Swan's use of his userspace. I think there should be a chance for some centralised discussion. User talk:Geo Swan]] is already swamped by the notices, and discussions such as User_talk:Geo_Swan#Pages_you_may_want_to_delete are lost in the trees. Ideally, I think, Geo Swan might propose to move much of the material offsite? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That suggestion has been made, both on his userpage and in e-mails. He seems to be resistant to the idea, but the substantial number of MFD nominations (some of which were speedied, and the vast majority of which appear to be headed for deletion), might make him re-evaluate his decision. He still has a startling number of cross-namespace redirects (from userspace to mainspace) and internal redirects (from one location in his userspace to another) that need to be cleaned out as well. He has been regularly deleting articles in his userspace, but the sheer numbers of subpages he has makes trudging through the list an unpleasant chore. Horologium (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like what happens when the OH&S housekeeping guy discovers one of the old professors in a forgotten part of the building. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this? I am familiar with the AFD process...but not so much when it comes to what is allowed to be kept in user space. This appears to be...well...nonsense. Is nonsense allowed in user space? Also, unless it is all just made-up, I am worried it may contain some copyvios, or might be a prank, or indirect attack on someone. Anyway, some guidance would be appreciated as I would like to become more familiar with the wp:MFD process. Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi, a page was moved while an MfD discussion about the page was underway. However, the template for an MfD clearly states that “You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to Deletion.” Yet, many people in the Mfd still saw it fit to condone the move and even kept the page as a result of it. When is it appropriate, if ever, to allow the moving of pages that are under miscellany for deletion discussions? Your responses to this question are greatly appreciated. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Surely we don't need an RfC on this? The MfD you are referring to was an exception to the rule. Moving the page and removing certain content made the page more acceptable to others. Thus, problem solved. It isn't always acceptable to move pages under discussion, but this was clearly the right move. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with all of PeterSymonds' points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• The reason that pages aren't supposed to be moved is that it breaks the hyperlink in the MFD notice, which we didn't fix in the same way that we fixed this problem for the AFD notice some years ago. If one is prepared to do all of the work to fix the links manually — such as this, modifying the header and links in the MFD discussion, and (if necessary and appropriate) creating prophylactic redirects for the MFD page — then moves are not problematic. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think PeterSymonds is correct in this case. We don't need to be totally rigid about applying the rules if breaking them will solve the problem and make everyone happy. It's generally not a good idea to move pages that are under deletion discussion, and the language should stay, be be applied in most cases. Herostratus (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• The question is whether these exceptions should be noted under the template for mfd for future cases such as this. I've seen more mfds in the past where the mfd was moved while discussion was underway, not limited to just the one I mentioned above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a backlog. I blame some excessive officiousness, asking for community deletion discussions over trivialities that are better fixed by blanking or redirecting on discovery. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've started on this, but honestly, with the the mass noms of nearly everything under User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo, the work to close is a bit daunting, especially since every nom is on a separate page.

Why the heck doesn't mfd have daily log pages like CFD? It's not like their discussions are any longer. - jc37 07:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jc37 and Courcelles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, contrary to the current instructions at it doesn't look like unregistered users are able to get past step one of the MfD process at this time. I'd like to nominate User:WookieInHeat/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect for deletion. For better or for worse, it is still not possible for members of a civil society to use swastikas to describe their own irreverence. 24.162.198.130 (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created the discussion page on your behalf. You are free to comment there now at this point. Thanks for bringing it up, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! 24.162.198.130 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin delete an improper Talk page archive:

• Talk:Judaism_and_violence/Archive_10

It is not fatal, but the archive index in Talk:Judaism_and_violence is showing 3 archives (#1, #2, #10) when there should only be 2 (#1, #2). I'm not sure what process to use to get something simple like this deleted, so I just thought I'd post here. --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've handled it. In most cases, ((db-g6)) can handle such matters. Courcelles 21:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Zh:陳爽 should be deleted. It is a copy of zh:陳爽, is not in English, and is in the wrong namespace. I tried nominating it for speedy deletion but it seems that is not allowed in this case. 155.33.172.164 (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have finished the nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Zh:陳爽. Cunard (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.