All of the other deletion processes have an archive system by date, so I'm a little confused as to why the MfD archive only goes by month, and doesn't have carbon copies of the discussions like the other deletion processes (even TfD does it by date despite having very little nominations per date). Also, why are the closed discussions listed at their end dates (also unlike the other deletion processes)? For the sake of consistency, I have two proposals as to how this can be remedied, with only one major difference in-between them:
Create archives by date as "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Log/{expanded DMY date} and transclude the discussion pages into their respective start dates. This is similar to the setup currently used at AfD.
Create archives by date as "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Log/{expanded DMY date} and merge the discussion pages into their respective start dates. This is similar to the setup currently used at everyotherdeletionprocess.
What are everyone's thoughts so far? I'm currently neutral on this discussion, but my opinions may change based on the opinions of other users. ToThAc (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The archive is extremely difficult to use because so many of the debates are listed multiple times in the log. Does someone know what causes this? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I think the whole reason is because the bot is running on incredibly old software that isn't really helping matters much anymore. I think it's much better if we use bot maintenance on the same level that DumbBOT handles. ToThAc (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Responses
Create archive by date and Transclude the discussion. This is consistent with the way that MFD is currently being done, with each discussion being a free-standing XFD file. This will mean that subsequent referencing of closed MFDs will work in the way that it now does. Maybe this should be Upgrade function of Creating archive by date and Transcluding discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Leave it alone (but fix the bot problem below); having a huge page of transclusions that will easily exceed the template expansion limit isn't going to be useful. — xaosfluxTalk20:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I'm not entirely sure what you mean on a technical level, especially since AfD can handle it just fine. Could you clarify why this would be a large technical issue? ToThAc (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
So I can't be bothered to vote on all of these individually, but please do notify me if someone nominates the entire remaining "portal" namespace in one fell swoop. ―cobaltcigs08:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Why are portals undergoing mass deletions this year? They are useful and take a lot of time to make. I have always found them to be helpful and informative. RIP portals. Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: really two reasons apply to the ones that are being deleted: very few people read them (which applies especially to portals on narrow subjects), and very few (or no) editors maintain them (which in turn means they are subject to errors). The Portalspace would benefit if you would like to do any edits there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: consensus is otherwise: namely, that the main article and any associated navboxes and categories are more helpful than a portal for covering a niche subject, and so such a portal is redundant to that other content. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: There have been many long and frank discussions about the merits of deleting portals, and views still differ. As to why so much is happening this year, a 2018 RfC raised the profile of the Portal: namespace, leading to a general increase in activity. Certes (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
User:RoySmith - It looks like they are bundled correctly. I am more familiar with MFD than with AFD but have dealt with bundles in both, and I think that bundling works the same in MFD as in AFD. (RFD and TFD are weird, but we knew that.). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Template space userboxes
Why are userboxes in the template namespace nominated here instead of at Templates for discussion? I would like to have a proper explanation for this. (I am currently not pushing for it to be changed, however.) Geolodus (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Geolodus: it's a LONG story, but the most compelling reason is that they have nothing to do with "articles" or for the most part "readers". Most templates do, and the process of reviewing them is usually more about their usefulness to presenting content - wherein most userbox concerns end up being more about editor behavior. — xaosfluxTalk15:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Will someone please take a look at the archive? I think that the bot is disordered again, and has logged the same archives over and over again. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The date groups for October 20 and October 19 are out of order. Does this matter? Will the bot correct this, ignore it and proceed anyway, or become confused? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
“WP:MFD" redirects here. For deletion of modules, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. "WP:DFD" redirects here. For the failed proposal, see Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion.
Both should be removed as useless and misleading clutter. MFD is the main shortcut for WP:Miscellany for deletion. No one with introductory knowledge of XfD can reasonably expect it to mean Modules for Discussion, and modules got to TfD meaning that the permanent mention of redirecting here is misleading about which XfD covers modules. Same with Disambiguation pages, which go to AfD. If there is any serious confusion between “Drafts for Deletion” and “Disambiguations for Deletion”, the answer is a disambiguation page. However, use of DFD is negligible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
All right; here goes. Can you explain why someone without introductory knowledge (those exist, surprisingly) couldn't expect MFD to stand for "Modules for discussion/deletion"? The A in AFD stands for articles and the C in CFD stands for categories, so it would only seem logical. The main reasoning behind having a hatnote ponting to Disambiguations for discussion is that WP:DFD once led there before it failed as a proposal. I also don't see how either is more misleading than the redirects they mention. If you want MFD and DFD to point elsewhere, feel free to change them with discussion. (Also, this is a petty correction and not an argument, but disambiguation pages occur in more namespaces than the article one, so pages like WP:PT should not be nominated at AFD.) Geolodus (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Easy. Anyone thinking to have anything to do with these shortcuts should first read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It’s all explained there. Putting the words “module” and “disambiguation” at the top of MfD is plain stupid, it will obviously confuse people, as it did just this week. Even if not stupidly confusing, it’s clutter that serves no purpose, as no one uses DFD for anything, and no one uses MFD for modules. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Your extremely rare hypothetical person, on finding themselves redirected, can read the page lede (if there’s not too much clutter), and then next they can see the deletion processes info box on the right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I lightly lean toward deleting these in particular as not likely to be helpful, because "modules for deletion" and "disambiguation for discussion" are not stock WP phrases anyone is likely to be using and to expect a shortcut for. In general, however, I don't agree that DAB hatnotes (in mainspace or otherwise) are "clutter" when they serve a more plausible purpose. Otherwise we would not have and regularly use these templates, but they are in fact mainstays of our navigation system (indeed, their use is often cited as a reason to not disambiguate, to not rename a page, etc.; see, e.g., WP:TWODABS). — AReaderOutThatawayt/c08:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Spate of bad nominations of userspace drafts
Just noticed a bunch of userspace drafts nominated for reasons that don't seem to have a basis in policy.
As a reminder, sandboxes are for experimenting, learning, and drafting articles. Hence they are not indexed and not subject to most of our content guidelines (like notability). We have valuable CSD criteria to delete the promotional junk, attack pages, copyright violations, etc. Apart from that, there's WP:STALE. Importantly, this primarily applies to inactive users. I see multiple nominations of userpages and drafts right after creation. That's a major WP:BITE problem.
If the user is inactive, and the page doesn't qualify for CSD, and it hasn't been submitted to AfC, then ask if your problems are solved by blanking the page. (Personally, I don't think this accomplishes much other than disenfranchising editors less, given nobody who isn't undertaking userspace maintenance tasks will ever see it, but it's permitted by WP:STALE). For a userspace draft, MfD is for when it doesn't qualify for CSD and is problematic even if blanked. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Busywork should be mandatory reading for MfD nominators.
Draftspace was created and exists largely to keep worthless stuff out of sight. It is counterproductive to then bring worthless stuff to a community discussion. The AfC process is to ignore it until it is deleted by the G13 process. If submitted, it will be DECLINED or REJECTED and later deleted by the G13 process. If the author makes a pain by tendentious resubmission, WP:DMFD says to take it to MfD.
If you can point to any actual harm that outweighs letting normal processes take there course, then nominate citing a line from WP:NOT, such as NOTHOWTO. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Filtered versions of this page [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]] include:
* [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts]]
* [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals]]
To
Filtered versions of this page [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]] include:
* [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts]]
User:SmokeyJoe - User:Snaevar is right. The information for MFD says that MFD is the forum for TimedText. I think that should be changed, and that TimedText files should be considered to be files and discussed at Files for Deletion, but this is the correct forum for now. I think that it should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that I know the answer, but would like to be sure. A draft BLP was created on a non-notable person, Draft:Suhas Tejaskanda. The draft was declined twice and resubmitted twice. The author of the draft then became auto-confirmed, and created a copy of the BLP in article space, Suhas Tejaskanda. The article was then nominated for deletion, and the AFD will run for seven days. I declined the draft a third time. (I now see that I declined it on 'exists' grounds, and I probably should have also declined it on 'bio' grounds, but the reason for the decline is not important.) My question has to do only with having the draft deleted. I have put a note to the closer in the AFD asking that the draft also be deleted if the article is deleted. My question is whether this is the right way to bundle the nomination of the draft along with the nomination of the article. I think that if I tried to tag the draft either for {{MFD}} or {{AFD}}, the templates would sense and display template use errors. In this situation, should the reviewer of the draft simply request that the closer of the AFD also delete the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Book namespace cleanup quarry
Just thought I would advertise a quarry I found useful for book namespace cleanup since a few people here seemed interested in the book namespace when I nominated a few in December. quarry:query/46732 finds all books with no article of the same name meaning that many of these are about non-notable topics or one of the many hundreds of test books stemming from when the book creator was in the sidebar of every single article. I found that over a third of the ones I looked at probably should be deleted. Do what you want with this information. --Trialpears (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
MfD relisting
RE:
If a clear consensus has not emerged, consider relisting the discussion:
versus
Relisting at MfD is rarely needed, do not do so without a good reason. Reasons include important new information, or a need call back early participants to an unexpected new argument.
I think the first has served poorly and should be replaced by the second. The first serves to attract inept newcomer NAC-ers into relisting any old discussion that they don't know what to do with. No admin or other experienced closer needs to be told to "consider relisting" at the top of technical instructions on how to relist. The sole purpose of the line is to tempt someone into performing the relist. It gives no information about what to "consider". The change removes the empty statement, and gives example considerations.
I think it is desirable to discourage pointless, comment-free relists at MfD. They DO NOT attract more attention, but the opposite, they hide old discussions among the new. The prevent backlog alerts from advertising that there is a backlog. When relisted inappropriately, they delay a timely close by an experienced closer. Inexperienced closers should not be relisting difficult discussions, even if they could relist with a meaningful comment, they would do better to !vote or comment.
I note that there has been a rash of inappropriate pointless comment-free MfD relists lately, and that Godsy is one of the culprits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Beating a somewhat dead, decaying horse with this discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 11#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (and some of the discussions linked there as well). Relisting is the standard way to generate more comments when the outcome of a discussion is not clear and potentially avoid a no consesnsus close. It often works to that effect, e.g. as in some of the three discussions I have relisted at MfD this year: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Google Custom Search, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Camila Cabello, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Christianity/archivebox. The rate at which it happens is not obscene, and there is really no negative to it. Giving a discussion that could use some more input more of a chance to be seen is not a problem. Furthermore, I see no reason to vary guidance for this venue in contrast with others. Lastly, SmokeyJoe has expressed to me in the past that they dislike the order of the discussions being altered. Those coming to the venue see those at the top first and noticing something has been relisted signals that a discussion needs more input and makes it more likely that someone who might not otherwise have opined might decide to. If a discussion is at the bottom, it merely might have enough input but just be languishing. If newcomers to deletion mess up, a quick chat should remedy the situation (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NASLite) unless those discouraging it are wrong and the re-lister balks (judgment of the example withheld). Moreover, a relisted discussion can be closed before another 7-day period if consensus becomes clear. Honestly, there are not many downsides to relisting a discussion and garnering more input unless consensus is already clear. Current, longstanding wording is fine. "Appropriate", though it is clear what I mean by that and SmokeyJoe means by that is different, relisting should not be discouraged or minimalized. Relisting is not scary or harmful and it happens at other venues much more than it does here. Relisting is a good practice and should not necessarily be rare. — Godsy (TALKCONT)06:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
"[X] is standard" is no answer to criticism of a practice.
Shuffling of the list order is a definite downside. Hiding certain discussions from MfD reviewers who review the list from the tail end (an excellent practice!!) is very much a downside. The tail end has the difficult cases that require some effort, and the top end contain many trivial nominations that will be closed promptly at seven days. Comment-free pointless relisting hides the difficult cases and disguises the backlog.
Partial closing statement from the last RfC, Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?, Yes, there is consensus to support relistings of MfDs, regardless of contributions to the discussion, when done in good faith. This procedure is already in effect at WP:AFD, which does not significantly hinder resolution of deletion discussions. I stand by my statement about the "shuffling"; your complaint is a seemingly somewhat personal gripe and irreflective of the many others who do not share the same (perhaps peculiar) style of combing through discussions that you do. That aside, a relisted discussion is not really part of the backlog. The only other thing I will reiterate to a certain extent is that "bot-like comment-free relists, are not a meaningful contribution" is an argument that could be made at any venue, so I do not see why it is relevant to this specific venue over any other. If relisting as a concept as flawed, it should be argued against on a systematic as opposed to singular level. — Godsy (TALKCONT)08:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
In situations like this, is there a standard practice of posting an "after the discussion closes" notice on banned editor's talk pages, to aide in research later if there is suspected sock-puppetry? I'm trying to balance informing future editors (good) against "grave-dancing" (bad). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
ip here trying to list something for deletion
following the guide, after completing step 1 i'm supposed to add this here
anyway, WP:XE is actually the worst thing that has ever been on this site. uh, wait, um. i don't think that's a valid reason. uh. how about the essay is actually dumb, like, just use they. it's not that f*cking hard. this was created in 2014 but feels like it was created in 1960 like holy sh*t this is the most offensive thing ever. and like I know wikipedia is not censored but this is actually wasting space. like, if someone literally titled an essay wp:(racial slur) (you know what word i mean) would people be saying that wikipedia is not censored about that? would people want to keep that up? i don't even know. 24.236.225.133 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleting unambiguous promotion drafts in other people's userspace
I've got a situation where User:Dwid hellion, who goes by the same name as a singer in a well known band called funnily enough Integrity (band), has been repeatedly warned for vandalizing, disruptively editing and conflicts of interest with almost 500 edits on his own band page going back to 2009. All this is now up for discussion on the NPOV noticeboard. A similar situation involving a new account with only two edits that occurred earlier this month resulted in the user being blocked indefinitely, so I don't think Dwid's user page is going to be around much longer.
I have also discovered that this user has made a draft for a biography page based on himself. This is unambiguous promotion and should be deleted immediately.
The suggested remedies for "Deleting drafts in other people's userspace" on this project page all appear to be ineffectual in this situation:
I would discuss it with the user, but this user has a long track record of bad faith promotional editing, and considering his account is about to be blocked forever any minute now, that avenue appears to be pointless if not impossible.
He is not a newcomer who can be bitten.
It is not a question about material within the page.
The user is technically an established user, but only because no one has bothered to delete the account yet despite almost 500 justifiable reasons.
Finally, it was not an article that was recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace.
I feel that deleting this draft in this instance is warranted but I am unable to justify it using anything written on this policy page. Can we get some discussion going and perhaps add something new to that section? Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
As 91.9% of his edits are to mainspace, I feel that the outrage at his drafts and userspace pages is unjustified. I do not see the problem that you seem to see. Draftspace and userspace are NO_INDEX-ed; they are a safe place that is distinct from articles. Readers should not be able to inadvertently find them. Are there ongoing mainspace issues with his edits that should be dealt with first?
The policy that best applies to questions of deletion of userspace and draftspace pages is WP:NOT. Find any line at WP:NOT that is violated, and nominate the page at WP:MfD for that reason. For userspace, there may also be WP:UPNOT
If "unambiguous promotion drafts" is correct, try WP:CSD#G11.
When I click on WP:MfD to nominate the page for deletion as you suggested, the first full sentence says "Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {db-userreq} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep." Since it's not my page, whether or not I wish to keep it is a moot point.
I found the draft from his user contribution history because nearly every one of his 500+ edits have been bad faith as described above, mainspace and draftspace. It was not inadvertent. See previous comment. It will be deleted eventually for the reasons stated above, might as well delete it now instead of slowing down the queue of legitimate drafts waiting to be reviewed. It also takes up server space for no legitimate reason.
There just doesn't seem to be a solution for this situation on this project page. If it happens today, it will likely happen again. Kire1975 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Better instructions needed for the MfD group nomination process
This project page is informative, but the instructions on how to nominate several related pages in an umbrella nomination require improvements. The instructions are suited for individual nominations and currently do not provide any helpful info regarding the steps one should take when listing the pages in the discussion entry itself (which is given an arbitrary name by the nominator). Personally, I searched for previous similar discussions to see how it was done, found several different formats, and picked the most appropriate one. I recommend giving detailed instructions for listing MfD group nominations. Bezrat (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Requesting Help listing page for discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"This page is a completely redundant fork of Wikipedia:Conflicting sources which was written by a newcomer that seems to have fundamentally misunderstood the policies they were writing about and have confused Verifiability, truth and the existence of different opinions. The advice given by essay is a combination of confusing and nonsensical (what does "Verify each source" mean? where would you report sources as inaccurate?) and just flat out wrong ("show every source and use all of them" is not the correct way of dealing with this - you should represent all well covered mainstream views in accordance with due weight, not every source you can find). I see no need to have two essays covering the exact same issue and reaching the exact same conclusion (Write according to NPOV) when one of them deviates so far from accepted practices. I propose that this essay should be deleted and it's shortcut retargeted to Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. See also the TfD discussion related to it's associated clean up template and this discussion at wikiproject clean up."
Userbox MFD transcludes deletion templates on user pages
User:UBX/User drinks Coca-Cola is being discussed, and all pages transcluding it have the deletion template with a link to a nonexistent MFD for the user page; these are now 636 of the 730 pages in Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion. Transcluded pages are usually templates and the TFD template is a different style and links to the correct page. Is there a version of the MFD template that resembles the TFD template, or should there be "noinclude" tags around the MFD notice? Or would it be better to use TFD instead for the purpose? Peter James (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Article
This article should not be deleted quickly because it is the product of the author's mind, because there has always been and continues to be differences between people about the darkness or light of objects, and if no reason has been recorded for this issue, there is no reason to deny it. This is because no research has been done on it or the research done has not been concluded.
Although this article is short, it has been the result of months of field and library research, and in a nutshell, it is a fair amount for the general public and states the cause of this phenomenon, which is a hypothesis that can be examined.
As we all know, most of the world's most important discoveries, including Avogadro's law, Einstein's theory of relativity, etc., seemed to be born of the human mind at first, but after much research, they were officially proven.
But today, with the Internet and numerous encyclopedias, this type of article can be made available to others so that conclusions can be drawn much faster, because researchers can communicate much more easily. In fact, having this article in Wikipedia can make this material available to many researchers, and we can all conclude this in consultation with each other, so that the path to the turbulent path of knowledge advancement is faster.
Therefore, I ask you to publish this article for at least a month and then delete it if this is not successful.
With respect: parmida pirgourabi
91.98.180.81 (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Without wading into the specifics of that one debate, sometimes it is. It happens many times that a page with multiple issues may be speedy deleted if it qualifies under valid CSD criteria even if an xFD debate is also underway. For example, an AFD may be happening discussing notability concerns, but it turns out the entire page is one unrescuable copyvio. An admin will often delete the article under the G12 aegis, even if there was an AFD debate over notability concerns. There is no blanket rules about not doing CSD deletions for open xFD debates. Note that I am ONLY saying this IN THE GENERAL, and NOTHING I am saying here should be an interpretation about how any one specific situation should be interpreted, ESPECIALLY the one you linked, which I have no plans to get involved in. --Jayron3215:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Table of contents location
Is there some reason the table of contents has to be so far down on the page? On my laptop, I have to scroll through four whole screens before reaching it. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Could someone list the page Wikipedia:Copy and paste at MFD for me with the following rationale?
This essay is supposedly about the old copy and paste box that used to appear at the bottom of the edit window, which in the days before JavaScript was widespread you would use to insert characters by copying and pasting them into the wikitext. The essay, in its entirety, consists of a statement that the box exists, a substitution of the interface message, and a statement that it may or may not appear depending on your preferences. I genuinely cannot tell what the supposed use of this page is, it doesn't provide any information that isn't in the interface message itself. These days the box is essentially redundant to the Edit toolbar, with this box only appearing on browsers that have javascript disabled. A rough count indicates that this essay currently has ~ 10 incoming links (that aren't maintenance related), about 7 of which were obviously intended to be targeting WP:COPYPASTE, one from another essay and the remainder being left in comments from the essay's creator. This was previously nominated for deletion in 2016, which was closed as no consensus. I propose that this should be either deleted or userfied, and this page and it's three redirects (WP:PASTE, WP:Paste, WP:Copy/paste) retargeted to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, could someone list one more page at MFD for me please? The page is Portal:Nickelodeon and the rationale is as follows:
"Badly outdated and abandoned portal that has failed to attract a community of maintainers. Most of the content in the portal was created by a single editor between 2011 and 2014 and has been mostly abandoned since.
The portal contains 50 selected articles, all created between 2011 and 2014 with minimal updates since. All are in need of some maintanance, e.g. Nick@nite contains a logo that hasn't been used since 2012, outdated timeslots from a decade a go, The Penguins of Madagascar contains no mention of the second or third series and reads like the show ended in 2010.
The portal has 10 selected biographies, most created in 2011 with a couple of later additions in 2014. All are badly outdated - seeing a blurb like this which shows an image of a 20 year old, focuses on a TV show cancelled in 2007, contains outdated award counts, states that their latest film is something that was released in 2011 and talks about what they were doing "as of 2010" linking to an article on a 35 year old actor is jarring, to say the least.
The portal has 10 selected pictures, which are also showing their age. The most recent awards ceremony features dates form 2009, and there is no indication that the subject of this photograph was redeveloped in 2017. One of the photos was deleted as a copyvio 6 years ago and hasn't been replaced.
The portal has 5 "did you know sections", all of which focus on tv shows from the late 1990's to the late 2000's. There doesn't seem to be a single fact from the last decade included.
The news section contains a single item from 2012.
The "In this month" section doesn't contain anything more recent than 2014.
The Wikiproject the portal advertises as a hub for collaboration doesn't exist anymore, it was merged into Wikiproject television last year due to being unsustainable, and is currently semi-active.
The "Quality content" section contains an error message.
The "Things you can do" section instructs readers to tag articles with a deleted template.
The portal averages 760 page views a month, which is good for a portal, but this still represents only 0.6% of the page views of the article on nickelodeon, which receives over 118,800 page views a month.
Overall I just don't feel that a portal full of content related to what this tv station was doing a decade ago is performing it's function as a hub and a showcase for our nickelodeon related content. While it does attract some readers it has completely failed to attract maintainers, and is now badly showing it's age."
Some updates to the "What may be nominated for deletion here:" section:
Please remove "Education Program" from the list of namespaces. The education program namespace was uninstalled a couple of weeks ago and no longer exists, so no-one is ever going to be listing Education Program namespace pages for deletion here in the future.
The book namespace is currently empty (bar a single redirect), it is impossible to save book pages in it using the book creator and the devs are currently in the process of deleting the namespace (see Phab:T285766) Therefore the references to the book namespace can probably also be removed from the intro, although it might be worth waiting until the namespace is actually deleted.
I don’t nominate drafts or redirects for deletion very often, and Draft:Delete me Telfer is both. Apparently that confused me. Thinking I had nominated the target article for deletion, I created a second nomination for the entry linked above. Can someone get rid of the duplicate nomination? Thanks! Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Listing a page at MFD
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"A badly written and confusing tutorial, produced by a brand new editor who has since been blocked for disruptive editing and a general lack of competence. Apart from the obvious point that brand new editors with massive competence issues should not be telling other people what to do the text of this tutorial is useless and would not help any new editor getting started.
The tutorial starts with a two paragraph introduction, the first paragraph "helpfully" tells us that wikipedians are human, while the second is a massive bold notice about a mark-up language that Wikipedia doesn't use, which incorrectly tells readers that the text is written in mediawiki (as far as I'm aware the markup language has always been called wikitext).
The next section is "Practicing editing" which includes the good suggestion to practice in your personal sandbox, and the terrible advice to create pages on Test Wikipedia. Test wikipedia is used for testing new versions of mediawiki, writing articles there is a terrible idea for all kinds of reasons (the devs reserve the right to delete everything without notice, all the templates you need won't exist, you'll be using an experimental and often broken version of mediawiki, if you create a page an importer will be needed to move it over here etc).
The next section is "Start an article" which contains the confusing instruction that you can create a new article by Open a invalid link that looks like a normal Wikipedia article URL, that's not something I would expect to see in a simplified tutorial. It tells newcomers to use Articles for Creation but doesn't explain how. The fact that new editors won't be able to create main space pages is given as a footnote after most of the instructions. This section also contains the statement If somebody tries to create a new page outside the "Draft" namespace, the page may be moved to the Draft namespace., which is confusing without context as to what would cause a page to be moved to draft space (moving all new pages to draftspace regardless of their quality was one of the things that the creator was blocked for). As a final point creating new articles is about the most complex piece of content creation you can do on this site, we shouldn't be telling newbies reading a simplified tutorial to jump straight into creating a new page.
The final section is "Format text (WIP)" which says that you use apostrophes to make bold and italic text (again, without explaining how) then directs you to look in the creator's sandbox for examples of formatting.
About a half the text here is so poorly written and confusing that any newbie looking at it isn't going to have a clue what it's saying, a quarter is blatantly wrong and the remainder is pointless waffling that doesn't add anything of value. This tutorial provides no information on any of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines (like verifiability, Notability, Reliable sources ...) which isn't surprising given that the creator doesn't seem to understand them. Anyone trying to use this as a guide for getting started is going to be left confused and with major gaps in their knowledge. I suppose this title might make a good redirect to something, but given the number of help pages we have for beginners (WP:The wikipedia adventure, Help:Getting started, Help:your first article, Help:Introduction etc) I'm not sure where you would point it, especially since I'm not seeing any of them actually trying to be a simplified tutorial. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)"
Appears to be someone's attempt to make a modified version of Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia, but I can't see any use for it. The introductory text makes no sense (why is conflict of interest relevant here), there is no conceivable use for project building and it isn't a good humour page either.
@Finngall: I don't think it really fits the definition of G2, hence the MFD. The page is definitely an attempt to make something, it's just not a very good idea IMO. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Brand new project space page that seems to be trying to be a cross between the teahouse, a wikiproject and the community portal. The text at the top of the page is near nonsensical, and a look through the page history makes it clear that even the creator isn't even sure what this is supposed to be. This is redundant to the teahouse, wikiproject entertainment and the community portal which do much better jobs of being a place for newcomers to ask questions, discuss entertainment related articles and link to community resources respectively. I can see no reason to have this odd hybrid page, it serves no useful function while having the potential to confuse newcomers and as such should be deleted.
The vast majority of drafts that I am seeing nominated for deletion usually receive a response something along the lines of "Why did you nominate this? It would have been deleted under G13 anyway," implying that the process wastes everybody's time (which it likely does). With this being the case, why are drafts being nominated for deletion, and what is lost by simply allowing the speedy deletion process to take place? Would it be worth drafting some guidelines that dictate when a draft should and should not be nominated for deletion? WaltCip-(talk)16:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I have never participated here before, so I wasn't sure where this landed on the scale of blatant or not. Thanks. CT55555 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Request to list a few pages for discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A page created by a self admitted sock puppet which was in turn created to perform actions that would get their main account in trouble, this poorly thought out policy page aimed to create a "legal bans" noticeboard, where people who had committed crimes could be listed as "people who should never have a Wikipedia account". Having created the policy page the creator began filling the page up with the names of random non-notable criminals, with no evidence that any of these people had ever edited Wikipedia. The content in the page history is problematic from a BLP and Attack page perspective. The talk page of this policy consists of various admins and users trying to decide if the content falls under some deletion or oversight criteria, and various editors criticising the proposal from a BLP perspective. Some random editor's list of "The worlds worst criminals" is not suitable content for a Wikipedia project page, And the proposal is a non-starter because we do not require editors to use their real name. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Innapropriate and malformed long term abuse page, the only content here is a broken template substutution. The subject of this page, Siavash777 has only three short blocks for edit warring and is in no way an LTA. The creator of this page, Kabirat, was involved in an active edit war with the subject when they created it [3]. It is unacceptable for editors to make bogus LTA pages about editors they are in conflict with and maintaining an LTA page about an editor that is not an LTA represents a WP:Personal attack. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Malformed and inappropriate LTA page created by a brand new user on their second edit. The vast majority of this page is a failed template substitution which had all it's parameters filled in with rubbish. The infobox contains some information on the supposed "abuser", which consists of 6 IP addresses from the same subnet. The supposed habitual behaviour that requires an explanation to spot is "Repeatedly changing the facts and figures". The edits that supposedly qualified the IP user as being labelled as an "LTA" consist of a few dozen disruptive edits to the article Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). over the course of 3 months. This entire "LTA" situation was eventually resolved by semi-protecting the page. We do not need LTA pages making every time an editor with a dynamic IP address is mildly disruptive - this page is complete junk and there is nothing here that would qualify the IP as an LTA. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Useless, malformed, almost blank long term abuse report created by an editor who has now been blocked for their disruptive attempts at vandal fighting. The page contains a single sentence with no useful information. The IP range in question made a few hundred disruptive edits over the span of a few months before being range blocked. There is no need to document this editor as an LTA, and even if there was this page is completely useless in its current state. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Utterly ridiculous "long term abuse" report for an IP address that has made 20 edits. The IP that is the subject of this report has never been blocked or even received a warning. The edits from this IP are the mix of productive edits, Unproductive but good faith and vandalism that you would expect to see from any dynamic IP address, and based on the range of styles, editing methods and topics it has obviously been used by multiple people. The only section of this report that has been filled in is "Targeted areas, pages, themes" where the creator of this page has just made a list of all the pages this IP has ever made any kind of disruptive edit to, something that anyone can get from the IP's contributions page. The IP here is blatantly not an LTA and this page should be deleted. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey, thank for the MfD suggestions. I think however that you may be mistaken in filing an edit request. Edit requests are for when a page is protected beyond a level you are able to edit, and this page is unprotected. Also, don't worry about building the rationale here to have it added to MfD - thats the whole point - to discuss about pages and decide whether or not it should be deleted. For this reason, im marking this edit request as Not done. If you still need help, please contact me by either {{ping}}ing me here or asking me on my talk page. Thanks. Aidan9382(talk)19:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Aidan9382: The main MFD page is unprotected, but I can't nominate these pages for deletion because MFD requires you to create a subpage for the discussion, something you need to be autoconfirmed to do. The easiest way of creating these is to just copy the request into something like twinkle. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Good day! In what way can I delete a template (Philippine name) and moved to Family name hatnote instead. I know it sound insane but I think this is only my way to avoid confusion regarding resemblance between the said template and Spanish and Portuguese templates, and also the presence of the letter "Ñ" especially in the surnames as well. RenRen070193 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@RenRen070193: This is not a matter for consideration at Miscellany for deletion. These are templates, so the matter must be raised at Templates for discussion. Read WP:TFDcarefully, as far as the "Discussion" heading, then follow the directions at WP:TFDHOW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it would not. Save deletion for things that should not have been made in the first place. If there were ever active, they should be archived, not deleted. To archive requires only one person who knows what they are doing. Why do you consider the tagging as inactive to be insufficient?
Bigger picture is that the majority of WikiProjects are inactive. Non WikiProject members putting wikiproject tags on new pages have buried the inactive WikiProjects dead. They are mostly a thing of the past, with some strong exceptions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Reason - Violates WP:SMI by obstructing the top 50% of the screen in mobile web. This is transcluded in their talkpage, which makes it impossible to edit. Search bar, watchlist button, contribs, history and add topic button are all unclickable from User talk:Serial Number 54129 in mobile. They also have an image in the talkpage which hides the standard disclaimer, terms of service and other links at the bottom of page. This is disruptive and should be deleted. 2409:4071:E99:79F4:0:0:4388:8303 (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, like unless you are looking at something extremely offensive by Wikipedia standards like support for Nazis or something, you should talk with that user at their talk page. If their talk page is not editable due to accessibility isuues, leave a message at WP:HD and ping the editor. Don't bring to MfD. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})10:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried twice, but keep messing it up. I think user page User:Metro2fsb should be deleted as it looks like a wikipedia article, but it's not. I assume this message pings the user I'm talking about and I already mentioned this on their talk page and during a discussion on my talk page CT55555(talk) 04:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I come here to nominate User:Ewan junior for deletion because it is an old copy of Super Junior and appeared as a fake article, (also note that the user hasn't been editing since 2014) but after I read the guideline, it says that I can actually blank the page myself. Is that actually permissible? Should I open an MfD request instead? Lulusword(talk)19:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding computer-generated drafts
There's a fair amount of discussion being had at WT:LLM and elsewhere about the validity of AI-generated content. Does anyone have any general opinion about what to do if such content is brought to MfD, from draftspace or userspace? My instinct is to think it should be considered as harmless unless it contains a clear copyright violation or BLP issue, same as I would consider any material written by a human that has similar issues to what text generated content often has. However there are a lot of deeper potential issues being highlighted in discussion that show that computer-generated text drafts can often be irredeemably unsalvageable, and it's not like a human put (much) work into it so there's not really the layer of "consider the person's feelings if it's not hurting anyone" that's raised in the WP:NDRAFT essay which is often cited when people bring drafts to MfD. I don't know, maybe a speedy criteria will soon exist and then no one will have to think about it too deeply, but I figured I'd dump thoughts here regardless. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within)08:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I generally agree with your thoughts. Hold it to the same standards as anything else, but with the assumption that it was a low effort draft. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
