Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncle G (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 20 November 2005 (→[[2005-11-20]]: Discussion transferred from AFD to MFD.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for eight days or so; then are either deleted by an administrator, using community consensus (determined from the discussion) as a guideline, or kept.

Introduction

The other deletion discussion areas are:

According to Special:Search, the only currently-used namespaces in which articles are eligible for deletion here are Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia:, User:, and the various Talk: namespaces.

The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.

Please familiarize yourself with

Before considering nominating a non-main namespace page for deletion

Please bear in mind that:

  • Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
  • Nominating a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion for deletion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
  • However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive (e.g. "Proposal to reject proposal foo") it can be nominated for deletion.
  • Nominating a user's page for deletion without discussing the page with the user, either on the user's talk page or on the talk page of the page in question, is generally frowned upon, except if the user in question is permanently banned.
  • The Wikipedia: namespace is the project namespace, not the policy namespace.
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and list the redirect on WP:RFD if needed.

How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.

To list an article/page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

I.
Edit PageName.

  Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{subst:md1}}

Be sure to include "subst:", not just {{md1}}; this is easier on the servers. Please include "Nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary and don't mark it as a minor edit. Consider checking the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This will help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by a vandal. Save the page.

II.
Create its MfD subpage.

  You should see a prominent link to "this article's entry" in the new article text.
Follow that link (to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName) and enter this text:

{{subst:md2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~

Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include a reason after text=. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the ongoing discussion in your watchlist. Save the page.

III.
Add a line to MfD.

  Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the page:

{{subst:md3 | pg=PageName}}

Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include the page's name in your edit summary. Save the page.

Discussions

Articles currently being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

[purge the server's cache of this page]

[edit this list]

2005-11-20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 01:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility)

Pointless duplication of an existing page with some changes, which already has a widely known and widely recognised name, to a new inaccurate name. The 'change' seems to have been done by cut and paste by one individual, losing the old edit history, on the basis of a supposed survey which most of the people who use the page were largely in the dark about.

  • Speedy delete Inaccurate name (royalty and nobility and generally taken to be separate categories. The old page deliberately did not use either royal or noble in the title because it covered both). Needless duplication of an existing page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Past edit history of the page where most of this 'new' page was actually written was lost in the cut and paste. Changes then were made to this 'new' page without a consensus and on the basis of minimal participation because everyone else was using the original page and did not know of this page's existence, with work continuing on old page.[1]. Bad work in every conceivable way and needs to be binned immediately to send a message that you cannot just cut and paste a page to a new ___location and rewrite it, dumping the edit history. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion for reasons stated above by Jtdirl. Generally better to organize and codify the rules in a single article. Concensus needed for such a change. --StanZegel (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete' for all the reasons above. PMA 00:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion as stated by Jtdirl. Gene Nygaard 10:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think, on the grounds that the new title is less helpful than the existing one. Deb 19:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I think the title nomenclature here in the Wiki is a mess. --Ghirlandajo 12:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's a useful forum for discussing changes as long as it has a prominent notice that it is not policy, which it does. However, to do proper justice to the contributors of the source page and avoid any confusion, it should be deleted when its purpose is done. Say, 3 months without an edit. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind seeing this moved to userspace. Deco 04:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. Xoloz 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:N degrees of separation

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N degrees of separation
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Max Pratt Game.

I know that I have submitted this for AfD in the past, but this time I see that there is a similar game that is older and far more popular than mine. Jaberwocky6669 16:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to hu:. -Splashtalk 21:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Segítség

Hungarian instruction page in Wikispace. Should we transwiki this to hu? Or translate? Or delete? Radiant_>|< 23:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew O. Shadoura

Blatant advertising, vanity. This information was originally an article, listed for AfD. During the AfD vote, the AfD header was removed from the article, all of the AfD votes were blanked, and the AfD discussion was moved to an invalid page name. This certainly does not inspire faith in the article's author/the author of the software. The author has no other edits. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? This user is no longer causing disruption (knock on wood). How will "punishing" him by deleting his user page make things better? If anything, take it to his talk page and tell him he can't be doing things like that. Personally I like userfying pages as an alternative to speedy deletion or Afd. It's quicker and easier and causes fewer problems. If we start deleting userfied pages, a handy conflict-avoidance mechanism has effectively gone away. Friday (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion for now, as this was apparently userfied by Friday in her admininstrative judgment, and not by the party in question. Really, just advise Andrew O. Shadoura to put something less spammy on his user page, and see how that works out. BD2412 T 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to guess that anyone who would go to the lengths undertaken by Mr. Shadoura to advertise his product in the main article space is unlikely to be interested in making their userpage less "spammy" if that turns out to be their only advertising venue within Wikipedia. But I fight spam for a living, so I am perhaps cynical and jaded in this regard. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising, not a real user. Radiant_>|< 22:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User pages are supposed to be in furtherance of the construction of the encyclopedia. This is pure advertising, and an abuse of wikipedia. Moving this page to user space was an error, although i presume well-intentioned. This isn't even the classic vanity-bio, which is not unreasonable moved to user space, this is a pure product ad. wikipedia is not a free hosting service. DES (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This content belongs on a personal website and the edit history has nothing else in it. Once it's deleted, the user can if they wish create a new user page supplying information relevant to their role as an editor. I would normally give a "friendly reminder", but consider the means by which the content arrived here, it would be pointless. Deco 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Response to the Guardian, Wikipedia:Response to The Register, Wikipedia:Response to the Mail & Guardian Online

These do not seem to have been successful. If there is no interest, it would be better to delete them.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Radiant_>|< 19:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics

  • Delete. I created this myself, and after an extended absence realised that the Project covers a far too broad topic - successful projects seem to focus on a small area were WP was lacking; this is clearly not the case with this one. Have notified signed-up participants; others are more than welcome to keep it going if they want to! --HighHopes (T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)⋅(P) 14:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Project title is broad, and it may be underutilized, but "politics" is a topic fairly central to any encyclopedic endeavor; if this were deleted, it would probably be re-created within a month, so allow it to remain. Xoloz 05:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 19:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Politics

  • Delete. I created this after realising that an overall Politics WikiProject is too broad, and then realised that a narrower WikiProject still wouldn't work unless there is a significant gap in Wikipedia that can be best filled through collaborative effort. No such gap exists, so I intend on just running the Politics Portal without a corresponding WikiProject. --HighHopes (T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)⋅(P) 09:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This project, on the other hand, has no activity except HighHopes, so if he wants it gone, it should go. Xoloz 05:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by RHaworth. Titoxd(?!?) 20:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid don't pish off the red monkies

This nonsense was found linked from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-13

2005-11-12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Radiant_>|< 23:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/2005 questions

A useless list of questions that have been asked with no links or precise ___location of answers. CG 22:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um... that's the point of the list. Wikipedia:Reference desk archive, to which it is an index, is a link to a set of pages; it saves the searcher having to load first the Jan-Feb page, then the Mar-Apr one, and so forth, to find one question they know was asked in 2005. Keep; no useful reason to delete it, since people do go looking in the archives for questions they know were asked. Shimgray | talk | 17:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus and therefore the effect is to keep (Counting the nom there were 4 deletes out of 7 explicit votes). However the arguemnts for a merge seem reasonable, and anyone who wishes to be bold and simply carry out a merge to an approperite place could do so. DES (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contingency Page For When The Main Wikipedia Server Is Down

While I appreciate the idea of this page, the irony is that when the server is down, this page won't actually appear (and we have a few MediaWiki messages that do). So it's really a bit pointless. Radiant_>|< 11:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_>|< 23:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia days and subpages

A small number of pages with semi-important landmarks in Wikipedia history. Redundant with Wikipedia:Announcements and several similar pages. The fact that the author was quick to insert his own birthday (Wikipedia:October 30) leads me to think this is mainly vanity. Radiant_>|< 13:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Sweden

Last edit is from 5 July and since that time it looks more british than swedish. Visitors will not get much help. 80.135.25.238 12:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first instinct was to vote keep. But this duplicates the British Wikiportal and only has its header changed. At the moment it's completely misleading. Delete, unless someone wants to actually turn it into a Swedish portal before VFD ends. - Mgm|(talk) 13:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Unless the content has been changed to Swedish-relevant stuff by the end of the vfd period, then I recommend deletion -- Francs2000 | Talk   16:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of us Swedes knew about this. If someone is willing to put work into this then I'll vote keep. --Fred-Chess 16:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now as per Mgm. Svest 22:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
  • Keep It may not turn out much, but there is no reason to delete it anymore. Fred-Chess 09:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for certain now, the original reason for deletion (being a copy of the UK one) is no longer true. Let it develop. -- Francs2000 | Talk   10:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason for the vfd was to get people to work! We are getting the fruits now. It was just like presenting Sweden to vfd at its early stages. Of course, there's no need to delete a portal except if it's a "nonsense" one, let's say Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Toilet paper. Anyway, we're discussing those issues on Wikipedia:Wikiportal. Your help would be appreciated for participating in the discussion there. Cheers -- Svest 20:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
If this was the reason for VfD, I suggest we save everyone some time and close the VfD. Fred-Chess 10:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it wasn´t my reason and I´m not satisfied with it now. But if the majority votes for keep, then keep the portal. --80.135.14.6 21:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe a "historical" tag? Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Recruit a bunch of swedes to look after it. If it's not going to be maintained (or at least worked on until it's in such a state that it's a decent portal) it should be moved out of the protal namespace though. --fvw* 00:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh for heaven's sake, nobody is forcing Swedes to use the portal, and if they want it to be more useful all they have to do is edit it. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Portals are like main namespace pages in that they're part of the "end product" though. Just like an article that just consists of headers, sometimes nothing is better than something. --fvw* 02:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe. But the editors are the ones who decide what that "something" is, so let's let them get on with it. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Palestine series

"The Palestine series of Wikipedia articles has been in a state of perpetual flux. POV pushing and historical ignorance have combined to keep these articles a mess.", followed by a POV description of what exactly is wrong with it all. Also about a year outdated. Any point to this? Radiant_>|< 11:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Radiant_>|< 23:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

This page (WP:PAIN) was created over a month ago without discussion; it has not been used even once. In addition, it is contradictory to Wikipedia blocking policy, given that blocking may not be applied explictly due to personal attacks or other insults (several proposals attempting to introduce the new criteria have failed). In addition, this page promotes the image of a "cabal" - get someone else to block someone who you dislike. In any case, this page will ultimately do more good than harm and encourage the blocking of people without any attempt to resolve the issue first just for making personal attacks, contradicting policy. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 00:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first line in this article's talk page refers to where this was discussed.
  • Unhealthy obsession with blocking, eh? The page says, "Do nothing, warn them again, or block the user in question as you think is required. Explain things carefully to the user who listed the attacker if you feel there's been a misunderstanding."
  • The templates explicitly say that the block is being applied for disruption, which is per policy.
  • Recent discussions on ANI show support for action of this type as well.
  • A cabal would use an IRC channel. This is the opposite of that.
    brenneman(t)(c) 01:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I see little discussion before it was created on October 7 — your post on September 30 recieved no input until today. In either case, I don't think that's relevant except to demonstrate that this has undergone little discussion and has not gained the appropriate community consensus to be implemented now, if ever.
    • The point of this page (which is copied from WP:AIV) seems pretty clear to me: to block users who have made personal attacks. I'm certainly not condoning people who say rude or offensive things or saying that blocks of these people are wrong; I'm saying that setting up a system to manage the blocking of users only for making personal attacks is, in my opinion, inappropriate, given that we do not have a criteria for blocking these users. Several proposals have failed in the past.
    • Pointing to the "disruption" clause doesn't make sense; if someone's disrupting something, then s/he's either a vandal or POV pusher. The vast majority, if not all, of personal attack-ersfall into one of the categories. We have other methods to take handle these things, including a dispute resolution process. It makes no sense to use a term meant to be applied generally to a specific part of a proposal that has failed several times.
    • The discussion shows that blocking users solely for personal attacks is extremely controversial. In the example cited, the block was warranted more for disruption rather than personal attacks. While personal attacks may constitute a part of disruption, personal attacks alone cannot (explicitly) warrant a block. In either case, we shouldn't be trying to apply a specific case to a generalization here.
    • What I'm saying is that this gives the very negative impression of admin abuse, encouraging people who are involved in some sort of dispute to take this here. We're asking involved parties to take further action against other parties.
    • Many thanks for listening to this long rant. :-) As always, I value and respect your opinions. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I just point out that blocks for personal attacks do happen, and have happened for quite some time? They're somewhat controversial, though. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks. That is also where to find the discussion that led to the creation of WP:PAIN. That said I am not sure this page is a good idea but would be happy to discuss that. And as with all serious but possibly flawed proposals, keep. Radiant_>|< 16:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this page is poorly advertised, notify other editors in the usual places. If it is not grounded in policy or results in ill-advised admin action, use our usual mechanisms for admin misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per TenOfAllTrades. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete bad policy, overemphasies blocking people at the expense of cooperative dispute resolution. Klonimus 08:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree with it but that isn't a good reason to delete the page. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If admins blocking editors they're having a dispute with is wrong, what's wrong with a place for outside opinions as to proper actions -- and allowing others to enact or reject said actions? Also, this is transparency in action compared to e-mails, IRC, or even user pages. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but perhaps rename. While personal attacks are not a blockable offense by policy, the cited case is a clear incident of disruption, and disruption is somethng that merits blocking. As the recent case in WP:AN involving El C showed, it's better to leave blocking to a third-party admin. So, the incident is listed on WP:PAIN. Also, it's a safeguard: if the third-party admin does not believe that the reported user engaged in disruption of Wikipedia, he removes the listing, as non-vandalism is removed from WP:AIV. Besides, it is a serious proposal, we don't just delete these, folks! Titoxd(?!?) 20:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Titoxd.--Sean|Black 05:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 23:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Working the system

This page merely muddies the water for users of wikipedia. Its suggestions, esp. the first, would potentially make people who simply politely state that a person should familiarize themselves with wikipedia policy are in violation of it. See my post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or the reaction of the user who created this page, User talk:NPOVenforcer to being asked to familiarize themselves with policies like NPA for an idea of what this could lead too. Kit 20:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Quite decent articles

A list of two articles that are 'quite decent', as in pretty good but not up to FAC level. I fail to see the point. Radiant_>|< 10:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, after copy to BJAODN. -Splashtalk 21:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redrwan awards

The Wikipedia equivalent of a Razzy, thus basically a negative award. Hardly in use, but giving anti-awards sounds like an attack page to me. Radiant_>|< 10:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd BJAODN this. That way, acquaintances can use it for gentle fun. Every field of human endeavor needs a Razzy/Darwin-type award. I proudly present this to myself! :) If it ever became a ill-spirited nuisance, it could trashed then. Xoloz 18:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way I can recommend keeping these awards is if they are only given to those who have (in advance of the award) invited needling on their user pages. Now we need a template for use by those who feel they can take a ribbing. Chris the speller 04:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I intended to suggest, I hope one would only use this with WPians one knows. Obviously, a pattern of abusive use would suggest deletion, but such pattern doesn't exist. Xoloz 04:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to hu:. -Splashtalk 21:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Segítség

Hungarian instruction page in Wikispace. Should we transwiki this to hu? Or translate? Or delete? Radiant_>|< 23:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate waskeep Radiant_>|< 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sound/list and Wikipedia:Sound/list/playlist

Outdated list of media files on WikiCommons. Any point in this? Radiant_>|< 23:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is out of date, perhaps someone would like to update it. I find the list useful, because the information cannot be queried, and cannot be culled from any index. It is my goal to have recordings of all historically important music available. To reach this goal, volunteer and student orchestras, other performing groups, and individual performers, must be persuaded that Wikipedia is a meaningfully serious outlet for musical works. Doing this requires some sort of list of the material we are publishing thus far. That is why we have the list. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not *that* out of date. A large number of recordings were deleted en mass a while back, and it has simply not been updated to reflect that. On the other hand, there exists no such list elsewhere on wikipedia, and compiling one from scratch would be a monumentally difficult task. →Raul654 20:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Terms of Use of images from PA Photos and Wikipedia:Pictures from PA Photos Ltd

This terms of use section directly violates our copyright policy, and indeed the pictures page says "do not use pictures from PA since they're copyvio". This is rather pointless, and at least the license should go as it's invalid. Radiant_>|< 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Terms used in articles about Palestine

A bunch of POV definitions unused since 2004. Radiant_>|< 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TinyURL

I'm not sure what to do with this... it feels a bit like a pointless guideline, and it feels a bit like linkspam. Rename? Generalize? Strip the link? Delete? Radiant_>|< 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to template space Radiant_>|< 23:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template:NDegrees and Wikipedia:Template:Invalidtitle

These appear to be templates in Wikispace. Or is there something more to them? I'm not asking for them to be deleted but what exactly are they doing here? Radiant_>|< 22:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-09

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_>|< 16:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Homeworks The Homecenter

Advertising. Inappropriate use of User space. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Yes, MiscFD covers User pages. There may be precedent for this kind of thing, so you may want to find an admin. Deltabeignet 03:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-07

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. Radiant_>|< 16:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikistalking

WP:POINT --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_>|< 16:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikisuicide

WP:POINT --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was USERFY. I've moved it to User:Silverback/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse. There seems minimal support for keeping this where it is, discarding the presumably irate anon. The fact is also that it wasn't certified, and such RfCs are routinely deleted. -Splashtalk 21:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse

Obviously, a highly unusual AfD, but I think in this case an AfD is proper. This RfC was deleted because of improper use of RfC process and, as is in my opinion more fatal, failue to have a second certification within the requisite 48 hours. I don't think it can/should be revived by a second certification showing up subsequently (quite a bit past the deadline); rather, it should be deleted. If Silverback wants to redo it, it should be redone from step 1 properly this time. Delete. --Nlu 16:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this RfC was speedied by User:Radiant and cut-and-paste recreated by User:Silverback. As the edit history was no restored, it currently violates the GFDL. --Doc ask? 17:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (After edit conflict with Doc) In addition, this was created by copy-and-paste; the odd format of the RfC will make it difficult to determine who said what without a history. This should be deleted without prejudice against a new properly filed and formatted user-conduct RfC, preferably without the unnecessarily long name. Now that the GFDL issues have been resolved, this should be Userfied without prejudice against a properly-formatted user-conduct RfC. android79 00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHBT WHL WSHAND. Radiant_>|< 17:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC) I retract this remark as inappropriate. Radiant_>|< 15:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've looked back at the history of this page. It looks like User:Radiant! deleted two days of input by a number of people on strictly adminstrative grounds. I think that violates the spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia Guidelines and Policy. The better course of action would have been to say "ok, this really isn't an RFC, so please move it into your user space (or move to XXXX)" rather than wiping out the input provided up to the point of deletion (101 edits at that point). It is understandable if admins scoff at the notion that there is anything remotely resembling abuse in their own culture, but this type of conduct merely fans the flames rather than helping to address concerns. Courtland 17:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored the history. Please note that the majority of edits were to disagree with the RFC, or to accuse its originator of trolling. Radiant_>|< 17:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks; appreciated. Courtland 18:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't thank Radiant! too quickly, he may have mislead you. Several of the posts/endorsements admitted some validity, and a couple were apologetic and understanding. So there it is not just work of one user you are considering destroying. Furthermore, if the history has been restored, is this page really still in violation of GFDL?--Silverback 23:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Silverback, you do not advance your position by making personal attacks. Courtland 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Silverback, you should definitely read up on our licenses before blindly accusing me of anything. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Radiant! You are off target. I was criticizing your simplistic characterization of the article as the majority of the edits were to disagree. Courtland appeared to be relying upon that. On the license issue, if anything I was relying on you, not disagreeing with you. You stated you restored the history. I thought the GFDL problem was because my cut and paste did not preserve the history. Therefore my question, "is this page really still in violation of GFDL?", was asking whether or not your restoration cleared up that issue. It sounded to me like you had fixed it. So if I was "blindly accusing" you of something license related, I was accusing you of having repaired my damage. I hope you can live with that accusation.--Silverback 00:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, fair enough. And no, it's no longer in violation of GFDL. As to the majority issue, I was referring to the 17 endorsements to the views that disagree with you. Radiant_>|< 00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, but 8 of those 17, were admitting I had a valid point, and suggesting I go about it differently. The other 9 were definitely negative, except that one of those 9 was me. I didn't say you lied. A too brief summary of a complex situation can be "misleading", although, I admit I could have phrased it in a less accusatory way. Apologies.--Silverback 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Malformed RFC, linked to from ArbCom evidence. --cesarb 19:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to say "BJAODN", but it's not really the right sort of bad joke. --Carnildo 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The page is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by virtue of all the fights the author has provoked on the page. 172 | Talk 23:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the nature of this particular RfC, a speedy delete would look like a cover up, and since it is in evidence, would also make that process more difficult, especially for non-admins. It becomes in effect "secret" evidence. To quote one of the defenders of Kelly Martin, nothing "inexcusable" has really occurred here. Keep if it can be done without violating GFDL (apologies about that).--Silverback 23:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that you recreated it after it was deleted, I don't think you have standing to raise this claim. --Nlu 09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if you read the talk page from before the 48 hour deletion, you would have seen that there was some question of whether this RfC fell into the RfC/user category, and that even assuming that it did, that a possible second certifier had been identified, but just not active at the time. I think Courtland makes the point about the quick adminstrative delete of a lot of user efforts up above. I've seen other RfCs go far beyond 48 hours without a second cert, so that increases the appearance of a coverup.--Silverback 10:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've seen other RfCs go far beyond 48 hours without a second cert – only because no one got around to delisting/deleting them. It's not like there's a bot that handles that particular janitorial task. A 48-hour-old uncertified RfC is no longer a valid RfC, whether it's still visible or not. android79 13:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The bot mustn't be sophisticated enough then, because look at [2], and only csloat and bishonen have signed attempts to resolve the dispute, and they are not the same dispute as required.--Silverback 14:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and encourage salient bits to be spun off into constructive suggestions as to new policies, guidelines and/or procedures; constructive output can of course come from the hottest of arguments, but only after those arguments have cooled a bit (not necessarily been resolved or forgotten, merely cooled). Courtland 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy. Improperly certified RFC, past the 48-hour deadline. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy I have serious concerns whether this RFC was ever properly certified and if that's the case then it should be delisted as soon as possible. I'd be in support of userfication though since A) we don't want accusations of a coverup, and B) personal rants and essays have always had a home in people's userspaces. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is true, !
  • Keep Sam Spade 18:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Jtkiefer. KillerChihuahua 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe userfy seems best. I should point out that some of the alleged abuse is the fact that a certain admin did not block a certain user over a 3RR (of course, neither did any other admin, so by that logic...) Radiant_>|< 17:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was a peculiar complaint, anyway -- I'm surprised it's still bothering Silverback so much. Silverback walked into the middle of a battle against a dedicated sockpuppet team (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy; the reversions in question were against sockpuppets of the "fatboy anon". A 3RR block was in effect on the primary IP of the fatboy anon; I summarily reversed the sockpuppet's repeated insertions (including edit comments including personal attacks). Silverback had no familiarity with the context of events. I thought the issue was all over in August. Oh well. I don't care hat happens to this one or another. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Radiant_>|< 23:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General complaints

The "General Complaints" page is apparently not widely monitored (or even known about), and it seems to duplicate the function of the pages at the "Village Pump". It is confusing for new users to have so many different places to provide feedback about how Wikipedia works. I therefore propose that this page should be deleted (or should redirect to the "Village Pump") on the grounds that it serves no useful purpose. Matt 12:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

I forgot to mention... if the page is deleted then the link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents (which is what originally led me to it) should also be deleted - Matt.

Keep. I regualrly momitor this page and respond to commetns there, as do several other users. in many ways it functions far more like the Help Desk/Reference desk than like the village pump, as sustained discussion threads are rare. It needs to be archived -- I will try to see about doing this shortly. But it serves a useful purpose and should not be deelted, IMO. DES (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I understand that this deletion request emerges from the continuing "too many places to ask for software changes" and I can sympathize with the nominator. However, eliminating one of those places without a contingency for handling where the input to it will go is not a responsible way forward. Consider that the entries on General Complaints fall into several categories on Village Pump and a simple redirect would not be the answer; further, as User:DESiegel points out, the page has some functions that are not redundant with those of the Village Pump pages. Courtland 22:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is my understanding that input by anonymous users in terms of opinions placed in favor or against deletion of pages is ignored as a matter of course. I predict that someone will or will suggest that this AFD entry be deleted on the basis that the nominator is anonymous. I think such action would be unfortunate, but it would also be understandable. Courtland 22:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since no checks made when you register, and anyone can register under any name, and register and re-register multiple times, I do not see that there is any substantive difference between you signing yourself Courtland and me signing myself "Matt". A policy such as you describe therefore seems ludicrous. In answer to the comments that the content of "General Complaints" has some functions which are not covered by Village Pump, may I suggest that, if the decision is made to keep the page, the distinction is explained both on the page itself and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents (I would do it myself but I do not understand what the difference is). Matt 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette, in particular the passage that states "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." If you think this is ludicrous, take your words to Wikipedia:Deletion reform. Courtland 23:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not appreciate that the account must have existed when the nomination was made. That makes more sense to me. Matt 01:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment if it is deleted, it will be necessary to fix up quite a few Help type references as it is described as the place for reporting software defects and requesting enhancements. As a new user I found the overlap a bit confusing, but the General complaints wording was sufficiently explicit that I concluded it was the right place for platform, rather than content or policy comments.
At the moemnt, its main problem is that it seems to be where people get to when they want to complain about content. They use the normal web site process of looking for "Contact Us", and see General complaints as an option. They don't read the tag line and they don't read the intro to the page. I suspect many of them are in fire and forget mode, as that is how you generally have to treat a complaint to a commercial web site, so never see the message telling them to fix the page themselves. --David Woolley 23:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some people do not appear to read the "not for discussing content" instructions. This is unsurprising. People do not generally tend to read instructions. My remedy for that problem would be to put a big red "STOP" sign on each affected page, such that no-one could possibly miss it, with accompanying text "STOP. Before you post a comment here... etc." However, this is not the reason that I recommended "General Complaints" for deletion. I am talking about non-content-related proposals. I do not understand what criteria one should use to decide whether to post a non-content-related comment, proposal, whinge etc to "General Complaints" or to "Village Pump". Looking at the content of the various pages there is no obvious difference that I can see. Matt 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Procedural comment On AfD the geernal rule is that votes by users who are not logged in, or who are logged in but have few edits, may be discounted, but anon nominations are not discounted. Thisis mostly to deal with the question of sockpuppets and "meatpuppets" and to a lesser extent to deal with people who have not been around long enough to be reasoanble representatives of the community consensus. I would presume that the same rules apply here. Note that this is always a matter of judgement by the closer. If a non-logged-in (IP) user has a long list of edits that indicate a single consistant user of that IP, then IMO the closer should treat thst user like a logged-in user. DES (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this article... and I don't think it's working. This is something I mentioned in the article; see point #99. The things people complain about are either things they can fix themselves and should get up and do, or are the things (like the search engine) that only the highest level programmers can deal with. This article isn't doing anything, and if there's no way to make it useful, then delete it. -Litefantastic 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is doing something, perhaps not as much as or what you hoped. in many cases we can point people at where or how to do somethign themselves, or where/how to suggest to the developers that soemthing be changed. And in many other cases it serves as a form of vandalism alert. Yes people should lern to fix that themselves, but I'd rather have them reprot it soemwhere where aoemone else might notice and fix it than do nothing. DES (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DES. Xoloz 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because I think some people still use the page, though I wouldn't recommend it. However, I assure you that the nomination is in good faith. I have looked at this anons edits, and participated in discussion with him. What I said may have in encouraged him to make the nomination, in fact. Though I disagree with that step, I don't have any doubt about his motives. Superm401 | Talk 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given this some thought. WP:GC has several weaknesses; fortunately, only two pages point to it: Wikipedia:Contact us and Help:Contents. So there's room for improvement:
  1. First of all, [[Wikipedia:Specific Complaints]] seems obligatory yet it's missing. Where do I put my specific complaints?  :) Joking aside though, the title itself is bad - to a reader's eye a catch-all for any gripe because WP is not best thing since sliced bread.
  2. It seems resolved complaints eventually go to WP:GC(resolved). This design means that the page becomes top heavy with unresolved complaints. Can this design be improved?
  3. Each wiki page already has a built-in complaints desk, its talk page. (NOTE: I've edited Help:Contents#Asking_questions to send people to Talk pages. Can someone improve the text I wrote, please? Maybe somehow invite the reader to fix the page herself?)
  4. Wikipedia:Contact us says, "If you would like to suggest improvements to the site's design or to the encyclopedia, you can leave a comment at the General Complaints page." See the conflict? My vote is to Rename to Wikipedia:General Comments. One bonus of this is that comments, by definition, require no replies.
  5. An anecdote: What do you do, DES? Oh I regularly monitor this website's General Complaints page. That must be tough. How much do you get paid for it? Oh I volunteered for it. Huh, but at least do you get to suggest changes or improvements to the website? For the developer-side stuff, no. Actually for typos and such, I make the changes myself. Oh, they let you do that, that must be cool. The thing is, EVERYBODY can fix the typos themselves. Yeah, but of course, they'd rather file a complaint than to learn how. Right. :)
  6. Final comment: IMO, anything on any website that says "Help:Contact Us:General <whatever>" or "Help:Ask a Question:General <whatever>" becomes the default webmaster@domainname.com, that is, the default bucket for all site-related communications. And when you show a "click here to leave a <whatever>" on this page — no matter how enormous the red READ THIS FIRST or READ THE FAQ FIRST stop signs put there — it's the same thing. Let's face it.
Thank you for listening. -- Perfecto   03:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's also used in Template:HD header and therefore on the Wikipedia:Help desk page. --David Woolley 11:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See, each page pointing to it describes GC differently. -- Perfecto   17:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coincidently I noticed that WP:GC wasn't getting enough attention and put this notice in the Help desk talk, even before this MfD. The Village pump (with its abstract name and specific sections) is too daunting for new users (I can elaborate if needed), so they find themselves at General complaints. I have helped a confused, frustrated user who was inadvently blocked. I have explained why there are so many US places pop up when you use the random article feature. I have directed people to talk pages or the Reference desk. General complaints is useful for new users and so should remain.--Commander Keane 16:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with soem of User:Perfecto's comments on how GC, if kept, needs to be improved. We need an "old but unresolved" archive page, for example. The wording and position of the links to GC probaly also need improments. However I have been alerted to situations in need of attention throgh GC, and i have (I think) been able to help some people become useful contributors here via GC. People who leave fire&forget comemtns about basic policies clearly can't be helped much. DES (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new headers directing people to specific locations for specific comments will hopefully make a difference. What will really make a difference is if it is better known about by regulars - I only found it by chance in an anon-user's contributions list, whereas it seems very easy to find for people with a gripe. Perhaps a link from wp:an and the admin reading list would help? If in a couple of months the headers haven't made a difference and its still mostly people syaing "somebody posted a rude word in an article, but I'm not going to tell you which one" then we can revisit the issue and come up with an alternative. Thryduulf 01:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I do not regularly monitor the page, I do respond sometimes to people when I see it pop up on Recent Changes. I think it is a useful page; possibly it could be advertised better, as another post above notes. Antandrus (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some people want to log their reactions quckly without having to navigate Village Pump. The "general complaints" or "suggestion box" concept could be a valuable communication tool for people who might not want to enter Village Pump for whatever reasons. For example, I found a bug in wikipedia. Why not drop it in "general complaints?" Rtdrury (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because apparently nobody who is ever going to do anything about it looks at that page. They only look at that "Bugzilla" thing, or so I'm led to believe... Matt 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
      • The developers do not msotly monitor the GC page, no. But they do want a point to a discussion of an issue on the wiki to make sure that ther is more than one or two people intersted in a change. I have on more than one occasion logged a bugzilla entry based on issues that I saw rasied on the GC page, or started a longer discussion at the pump, or both. DES (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point, but we already have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bug_report for this. Matt 21:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment. I've just replaced GC's notice to read It is not intended for reporting errors inside specific articles. I believe I found the reason we continue to receive vandalism reports and content issues to GC. It's back at Wikipedia:Contact Us, a protected page. It says, For suggesting an improvement to the encyclopedia or site design, see General Complaints. A user finds a vandalism or bad content, clicks "Contact Us" on the left, reads (only) the topmost section of Wikipedia:Contact Us and clicks immediately to the GC page. I hope my edit improves the situation, though will someone please rephrase the Contact Us page? -- Perfecto   05:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-11-05

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kept for lack of consensus. Radiant_>|< 16:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unusual requests

Dont Bite the newbies! This page is really rude about newcomers who don't understand our Encyclo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4836.03 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-10-29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep per nomination withdrawl. Xoloz 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portals in Wikispace

There are a lot of portal pages left in Wikipedia namespace. Since we now have a portal namespace, they should be moved there. See this link. Radiant_>|< 11:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per the very top of Wikipedia:Wikiportal NOTE: There is now a formal Portal namespace - see WP:PORTAL. If your Wikiportal is designed as a reader-aid, please place it in the portal namespace. If it is an editor-aid, keep it at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Subject. The Portal namespace is for reader orientated portals, and not all portals should be there. There is discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal. Hiding talk 13:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose but not for the above reasons. I feel the distinction between reader-aid and editor-aid has lost all meaning and should be accordingly abandoned. At Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal we are currently discussing ideas for the establishment of new standards and guidelines for Portals. One point I think is generally agreed upon is the moving and restraing to Wikipedia namespace of sub-standard Portals. Thus, those under construction will naturally be found in Wikipedia namespace before being migrated to Portal namespace (provided they meet standards). Besides that, I don't quite understand this nomination. Radiant acknowledges that a Portal namespace has been created for Portals, but wants to delete those not already there? If it was a concern, a proposal should have been made to either Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal or Wikipedia talk:Portal to move them. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Entirely - everything that Cyberjunkie has said. Proposisng something for deletion without discussing it in the relevant talk page is just stupid, and there is absolutely no way that "sub-standard" (we are yet to confirm exactly what defines "sub-standard") portals should be allowed onto the Portals namespace. Current opinion is that a number of portals in the namespace should not be there due to lack of quality/substance/potential - proposing the addition of more Portals, all likely to be sub-standard, is sheer lunacy. Deano 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons given above and more. As the WPian probably most responsible for the concept of the creation of the portal namespace (although Tim Starling was, I believe, the one who did the work in the actual mechanical creation, for which I am very grateful), may I offer a few words on its purpose. The Portal namespace is a user namespace - that is, it is for the general public rather than editors, although, unlike the main namespace, advertisements to relevant WikiProjects and encouragements to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as they are discreet, are okay. But it is essentially for user-facing, good quality portals. Nascent portals and substandard portals should remain in the Wikipedia namespace until they are ready to go live. Coincidentally, as the WPians above have noted, there is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal discussing the quality of what is in the Portal namespace, with a view to using it only for portals that meet a certain quality threshold. I think further discussion is better off carried on there, jguk 19:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say I wanted them deleted (yes, yes, it's mfD, but several ?fD pages also deal with other kinds of maintenance at times). But thanks for the explanation. I hope that the portals here can get improved or removed on an individual basis. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Category:Wikipedia image galleries Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Broken pages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Google is fact

"If it can't be found using Google it therefore doesn't exist. Any POV backed up with a superiour number of hits automaticly becomes the new truth." - I'd BJAODN it if I found it at all funny. It's kind of pointless and WP:NOT a jokebook. Radiant_>|< 22:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject JFK assassination

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It appears some like the historical value, and there is already a bot request, so I'll drop a {historical} on them. -Splashtalk 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches, Wikipedia:Google first-page results, Wikipedia:What Google liked, Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, L-Z

Unless we get a bot to do it, this is unmaintainable. I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is famous and gets a lot of google hits, but this is not a useful way of indicating that. Radiant_>|< 11:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus and therefore the effect is to keep (Counting the nom there were 4 deletes out of 7 explicit votes). However the arguemnts for a merge seem reasonable, and anyone who wishes to be bold and simply carry out a merge to an approperite place could do so. DES (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contingency Page For When The Main Wikipedia Server Is Down

While I appreciate the idea of this page, the irony is that when the server is down, this page won't actually appear (and we have a few MediaWiki messages that do). So it's really a bit pointless. Radiant_>|< 11:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Radiant_>|< 16:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit

For prior discussions of this page, see Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/2005-08-25, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency.

Orphaned/Defunct project has not been updated in a long time and no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did). Clean up of WP namespace by deletion. Agriculture 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Moved to BJAODN, to be precise, since several people suggested that, even if I didn't find it all that funny. Radiant_>|< 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject hot chicks

This project is a sexist, mysognist disgrace to Wikipedia. It serves absolutely no purpose and is utterly offensive. Ambi 12:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2005-10-28

 
Crazy!
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy. Radiant_>|< 16:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Silly-o-meter

A barometer that is intended to be attached to proposal pages to indicate how silly they are. And of course reflexive on itself. BJAODN. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or BJAODN. I don't really think it's funny, but I don't think many of the BJAODNs are funny, so I'm out-of-step in this area. Xoloz 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say that this was silly if it wasn't so stupid. Cyferx 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy. Radiant_>|< 17:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fox News

"Repeated edit wars have demonstrated the need for a series of abreviations to allow more succinct rebuttal during NPOV debates". That seems hardly a good reason to propose a new guideline. There are lots of things that WP is not, which is trivial and vacuously true. Would suggest deletion or a redirect to the already overly long WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 23:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the creator likes it as a "proposal," why not Userfy it. He can employ the abbreviation all he wants in argument, linked to his user-space, and (if it catches on with enough people), then he'll have support to move it back to name-space. At the least, he'll be able to use it himself, which is probably what he wants. Note that (although I am myself proudly very politically liberal), a corollary for those of the other opinion could be NAF (Not Al Franken). Xoloz 04:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a personal opinion piece. Since no one else has expressed approval, it looks like it's not going to be anything more than that. Probably something best to have on a user page. -- Beland 02:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - will the closer please do so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Usersubpageify into a Wikiphilosophies type of page. --Idont Havaname 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=28795570"