Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy/Archive 1

Note: To discuss deletion policy, please use Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy

Proposition
This page whilst fulfilling a useful and required role is also responsible for some decisions which are stifling creativity. I would therefore suggest that it becomes the object of a wiki research project to ensure creativity and reviewers are suitably encouraged and accomodated 82.69.58.117 16:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Users of this site are continuously trying to make it better. It would be more helpful if you could give some suggestions for new policies. - Aya 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Templates on this page
Both the VfD and speedy deletion pages appear on this page, which causes the page itself to be listed as VfD. Is there a way to include the templates without this happening? Should we just copy and paste the contents instead of including the templates? MShonle 19:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added these templates yesterday because it helps newbies understand what's going on with the templates. In answer to question on surpressing the categories, no, there is no way, and the demonstration of the candidates for speedy deletion template requires the use of the template because of the |reason thing. But it's not a big problem, they've done it on Wikipedia for a long time and I thought it wouldn't hurt us here. If you'll notice, I mentioned on the categories pages that neither of these are actually being considered for deletion- as I hope any admin would know anyway.--Naryathegreat 20:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it still seems a little sloppy. Why can't we just copy and paste the contents instead of actually using the templates themselves? (Also, remember it's just HTML generated in the end, the |reason thing is a red herring-- perhaps you don't know what I'm getting at?) The only disadvantage of copy and paste (which would *look* exactly the same as it does now) would be that if one changes, the other will need to change too. This seems far less of a problem than having the page actually be listed for deletion. MShonle 22:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The categories will still contain the templates, but there's no reasonable way around this - Aya 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Images by User:Siegfried Petry

 * All images by User:Siegfried Petry that can be converted to HTML and TeX. There appear to be hundreds of them, so it will be a long time before these can be deleted. Guanaco 21:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Not all of them can, but many could. One can look for them here: Special:Contributions/Siegfried_Petry -- mattrix 22:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned pages
There are more than 500 orphaned pages, and many of them should be deleted. Some are not in English, so I can't judge. I deleted all pages in French among them. Yann 14:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'''Keep, keep keeeeep! Your list is bogus!''' I see 3 copies of the perfectly-good Egg_Roll recipe in that list. Something is not right about that list. AlbertCahalan 22:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I spotted something that appears 5 times, all identical. Soppose there are 6 copies in the database, 5 of which are counted as orphans. So you delete 5... but in doing so, wipe out the copy with the most recent history. Maybe you even corrupt the database worse than it is already. As for the egg roll, that may be partly my doing, caused by the wiki telling me that the page is empty when I save it for the first time. So of course I hit the back button and try again, figuring that some database connection somewhere got dropped the first time. So that's at least 2 serious bugs right there, falsly (?) reporting that a fresh module has no data and allowing the addition of multiple modules with the same name. It would be very unwise to touch this mess without first investigating what is going wrong with the wiki database and other code. AlbertCahalan 22:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is this even listed here? It's not a specific page or book to be deleted. AlbertCahalan 21:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Read what Yann said. "many of them should be deleted". Some of them may be speedy deletes, which needs to be brought to immediate attention. Dysprosia 04:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion
Sorry, I'm confused about one thing.. should candidates for speedy deletion be listed on this page or is enough? - Sik0fewl 04:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's always helpful to list it on this page too, so there can be a discussion (if neccessary). Also, this page is read more than the page that lists all pages with the Delete template. MShonle 16:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've changed policy to remove this requirement. There's no need to list speedies on this page, since the whole point of them is for deletions which don't require a vote. Should an admin be uncertain as to whether or not to delete a speedy, they should personally add it to the VfD list, and change the 'delete' template inclusion to a 'vfd' one. It's probably wiser to use a speedy deletion tag even if the page doesn't break policy, but that you suspect it would be unilaterally voted to be deleted. An admin can easily promote it to a full VfD if they think you're wrong. This should save a lot of time. - Aya 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki and votes
I'm a bit confused on the "Pages to be transwikied." I don't see anybody voting on them? And neither any one of them seems to be signed? There is a lot of pages listed under the different languages, are there no administrators working on them? Or are there just a lot of books written in other languages(?) It's hard to get an idear on how long the different books has been listed there, because they are not signed. RoceKiller 22:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's just an open note that tells users that these articles are written in other languages, and thus must be moved out of the English wikibooks and into the ones for the approprate languages, as per the transwiki policy set out on meta (I think it's at Transwiki). The reason that little work has been done is that we are patiently waiting for MediaWiki 1.5 where new features will make the transwiki process will be largely painless (currently it's a cut-and-paste job, and legal restrictions make moving page histories more difficult to deal with).  If you want to do transwiki, you are of course more than welcome. KelvSYC 01:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no real need to debate these for any length of time. Stuff that isn't in English should be moved to the appropriate place, and that list is just a simple way to keep track of which ones need to be moved where. TUF-KAT 21:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to beat a dead horse, but the transwiki list is starting to be a nuisance. :) I'm not familiar enough with other languages and other languages' Wikis to help, so I can only bug people to ask if there is any progress in this area. - Lynx7725 7 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)


 * These entries seem to be beyond the scope of VfD, so I've moved them all to Pages to be transwikied, and linked from here. - Aya 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of images
I've listed a few images for speedy deletion. The actual image has been removed form the image page (this is the big step, because it's not undoable), but the image page has remained intact. So, does the image page get deleted eventually, or does it remain forever? If they are never deleted, then I'll simpy remove them from the speedy deletion list. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * After watching the same images for a few days, I've come to the conclusion that it does no harm. One, any image uploads in the future with the same name will simply override whatever's inside there with no warning, so no big issue there.. (well there is, but still.) Two, if nothing is linked to it, it becomes orphaned and nobody but us ghosts will know of it.


 * Given the lack of response to this query, I'll housekeep this next week (after you have a chance to read this), to keep the Talk Page manageable. - Lynx7725 7 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

better Vfding system
I think now that Wikibooks is getting bigger we need a proper Vfd system like Wikipedia with subpages and all. As it is the archive is going to become unmanagable. Of course I know that means more work is required with Vfd bots and all, but the benefits would surely outweigh the difficulties. GarrettTalk 01:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's process for this, but I'll check it out. In the meantime, I've made a few changes to the page that should hopefully speed things up while minimizing the length of the VfD page. The archive page is currently still as before, but I like the idea of having separate pages for each controversial page. This way it could serve as a complete history for why the page exists or not (i.e. roll up VfD and VfU into the same page). The downside is that it's gonna require a lot more maintenence to keep several pages where before there was only one. - Aya 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but soon entire books will be put up for deletion and not just individual modules. We must have clear naming conventions before we can deal with splitting up VFD into a separate CFD, RFD, IFD, etc. KelvSYC 19:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, hm, now that's a problem. Perhaps if you nominate the core of a Wikibook that counts as deletion for the rest of it as well, whereas if you nominate a page you only delete it and its subpages? Hm. GarrettTalk 22:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. When we delete just a module, we sometimes also delete the images too. I suppose the only exception to the "recursive delete" plan would be if multiple books link to, say, an image that actually is valid. MShonle 16:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Deprecation of voting
Moved from User talk:Uncle G - Aya T C 16:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason you felt the need to revert my attempt to tidy up this section?

Rather than rolling back your edit in an adversarial fashion, I shall instead justify my edit with a brief summary of the way in which VfD sections are normally formatted, to preserve the clarity of this somewhat contentious process. This will soon become part of Deletion policy to prevent edit wars, and minimize the time it takes for admins to sort all this nonsense out (they don't get paid for this y'know), unless you have a better idea.

The first conceptual subsection should indicate the reason why the page is contentious enough to warrant a VfD, signed by the user who believes it to be the case. Discussions on this reasoning should be carried out in this subsection using the standard talk-page paradigm (i.e. signed, indentated paragraphs). Signing comments is important for context, and so that users don't have to trawl thru the edit history to work out who said what. This section is arguably most important, since, at any time, an admin may decide that the page obviously falls within the criteria for speedy deletion, and just delete it without continuing the vote. This is largely to prevent redundant voting on pages that just say "sdlsdkjfsldk" or similar nonsense.

The second conceptual subsection should be used for voting. This can go on in parallel with the discussion in the first subsection. Only registered Wikibooks users are eligable to vote. To clearly separate actual votes from mere discussion, these should be bullet-pointed. For clarity, the first word or word-phrase should represent that user's vote, and should be emboldened, so that when the voting process ends, an administrator can quickly count up the votes. If the emboldened vote is at the end of the paragraph, they make get overlooked. Usually this vote is one of either "Delete" or "Keep" optionally followed by a justification, but other alternatives have been allowed such as "Move" or "Transwiki" (interpreted as "Move/Transwiki and delete from original location), with a more appropriate location suggested. Each vote must be signed or it will not be counted. It is customary for other users to use the 'indented bullet' format to comment on another user's vote, or perhaps elaborate on their own. Again, these comments should be signed.

The third conceptual subsection is reserved for when a decision has been made by an admin. They will append a non-bullet-pointed paragraph to indicate the resolution of the process. This is usually something like "Deleted", "Kept", "Moved", possibly emboldened for clarity, optionally followed by a reasoning for their subsequent actions, and signed.

The rest of the process is already documented in Deletion policy.

Comments? - Aya T C 22:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're question is the wrong question. The right question is why you felt the need to alter the words of other people's comments, and felt that what you were doing (which involved making grammatical nonsense of a sentence) was in fact "tidying up" at all.  It wasn't "tidying up".  It was altering comments to support a bad idea. The "way in which VFD sections are normally formatted" is simple mimicry of the way that Wikipedia does it, and on Wikipedia what you are proposing is widely seen to be exactly wrong and a terribly bad idea.  (There are a couple of pages on Meta dealing with the wrongness of focussing simply on votes, too.)  To repeat an oft-said mantra from Wikipedia VFD: It's not about the votes.  Deletion discussions are discussions, to determine a consensus.  The discussions are not "mere", as you term them.  They are the most important parts. Emphasizing the votes at the expense of the rationales is exactly wrong.  My votes go after my rationales for that very reason, and I encourage other editors to put the rationales first, and administrators to read the rationales.  This is exactly the reverse of the direction that you are pushing for, which encourages administrators to not read the discussions at all and to simply count boldfaced words instead. If you want to deal with sockpuppets, then don't try to make Wikibooks into a democracy.  Mimic Wikipedia some more, instead.  On Wikipedia, administrators have the leeway to optionally discount votes.  The Guide to VFD states outright that "administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion and making a decision. In contrast, a user who makes a well-argued case based upon the deletion policy and in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous." Uncle G 00:51:31, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

Okay. I just realised my post was somewhat self-contradictary...


 * 1) The first conceptual subsection...This section is arguably most important...
 * 2) The second conceptual subsection...separate actual votes from mere discussion...

...but this is a result of iterative editing while I actually re-think my position on the fly. Pretend I didn't use the word 'mere'. To clarify, I strongly believe the discussion part to be more important than the voting, so perhaps we're in agreement after all. Hopefully discussions will serve to create better policy which could ultimately deprecate the whole voting concept. I'd already alluded to this in Staff lounge, and I already made changes to Deletion policy to make it clearer when things can be deleted without a vote. I'm thinking of starting a new VfD for the page Votes for deletion itself. Perhaps it should be renamed Requests for policy clarification. Do we really need voting at all? - Aya T C 01:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact I just looked up w:Wikipedia:Sock puppet, a concept which had occurred to me already. I just didn't realise there was a common word-phrase for it. This would tend to imply that voting is fundamentally flawed with the current MediaWiki software, so perhaps it should be deprecated completely. - Aya T C 01:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Short version: VfD useful even if votes not considered in a 50% + 1 context (which they should not be). Long version: In the collectives that I have worked in, there is often a call for a straw poll, which is done before extensive discussion on a particular matter. This is the quick way to determine consensus, and the VfD could be seen in this light. On the other hand, a collective meeting is synchronous and wikibooks is (very) asynchronous and discussion occurs anyway. I do believe that if there is a clear consensus via votes to delete/keep, that should be sufficient. If there is a split, examining the discussion is required. A major problem of consensus decision-making is that it tends to favor the status quo, and in a place like wiki(books|pedia|etc) where there is tons of unregulated input, this can get messy since the status quo is whatever random shit somebody made into a module. Given that, I believe that the admins should have some amount of discretion in deletions even when there is not a clear consensus (as in wikipedia, by examining the quality of viewpoints in the discussion). Kellen 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- I think this provides a very useful purpose, and is a "gut check" to see if a book really should be removed or kept. Notable successes include How To Build A Pykrete Bong and Making an Island, where they were overwhelmingly confirmed as being a part of Wikibooks.  21 Century Math was a good example of something that got deleted that really never should have been here either.  The long and short of it is that perhaps a discussion about the distinction between the  tag and the  tag could be discussed, and a stronger policy distinction should take place.  Perhaps the delete tag should be used more often?  Other tags could also be implemented that would take care of some issues, or perhaps into seperate discussion, such as a particular module with a copyright violation (no need for a VfD... just delete the page history of the violating content), NPOV criticism (put into a list of books that need to be revised... or simply deleted but after nobody is willing to do the revision), and Wikipedia fork violation (where the discussion should take place within the Wikibook discussion page itself before thrown onto the VfD page).  A larger variety of content objection tags might help clean up some of the mess. --Rob Horning 21:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks actually has a tag already.  It is possibly underused because it isn't documented anywhere, and because it gives no opportunity for an editor to be specific.  I'll be bold and document it for you.  Imitating the Wikinews cleanup tag, instead of the Wikipedia one, is also a good idea.  That way, you won't need a "larger variety of tags".  I'll be bold and do that for you, too. Uncle G 22:07:06, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
 * Several points:
 * Less should be read into the discussions that have very recently sprung up on Wikipedia than you are reading. The discussions are in fact old ones, that have been discussed and re-discussed many times.  They are simply being recycled on fresh discussion pages by Wikipedia editors who have patently not read w:Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion and its (copious) archives.  They have resulted from a Wikipedia editor actually deleting Wikipedia's deletion discussion area (a disruptive act for which xe has subsequently been roundly condemned), taking another Wikipedia editor's hyperbolic talk page comments involving disrupting Wikipedia to make a point at face value and actually enacting them  (which I don't believe was that latter editor's intention).
 * To state something that is stated in Wikipedia VFD discussions (mainly when people come to it nominating things to be merged): Don't nominate something for deletion that you don't in fact want deleted. You don't actually want Votes for deletion deleted, so you shouldn't really have nominated it.  The correct place for a discussion of altering the way that this page works is its talk page, not here, and gradual discussion has indeed been happening there since July.  Don't follow the bad example of the aforementioned disruptive Wikipedia editor.
 * This shouldn't be about being different to Wikipedia. All of the WikiMedia projects have deletion discussion areas.  They have various names, but they are all similar in concept.  This is because the concept is the same across all of the projects.  Deletion is performed by administrators following, as best they can, official policy and consensus.  That doesn't change.
 * I strongly suggest not having this discussion here, speedily closing this nomination where no deletion is actually desired, and instead simply continuing the discussions that have been ongoing on Wikibooks talk:Votes for deletion. Uncle G 22:07:06, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd be happy if the page did get deleted, since it is not lending itself to creating policy to prevent the same few arguments cropping up again and again. The reason I said it would more likely be moved is that it was my suspicion that other users would not want it deleted, so I have moved this section here. Problem is now, this page will most likely be ignored for the next 50 years. - Aya T C 23:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep: The proposal for an alternative is a non-proposal. It is nonsense to talk about changing the existing system when: (1) no real alternative has been discussed yet, or even presented; and (2) the faults with the existing system aren't clear or spelled out. Comments like "Do not add anything more to that section" are not helpful: a discussion of a specific replacement needs to be carried out. I propose a new page gets created to talk about the alternative. After that discussion is had, then we should vote to do the replace or not. MShonle 23:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not quite. The obvious point is that since only admins can perform deletions, then admins merely need to execute deletion policy as decided by the community. Thus to get something deleted, the community should modify Deletion policy to cover some sort of generalized case which includes the thing they want deleted. Why is the community so petrified to change policy?


 * e.g. Instead of nominating, Neo, just add a new bullet-pointed criterion to Deletion policy such as:


 * Books about constructed languages


 * After all, you're not actually objecting specifically to just Neo, but any book with a similar scope. The current VfD page itself can just live in Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy, which is conceptually what WB:VFD is discussing after all.


 * Aya T C 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the existing policy and system we have works well. I'll agree that it has its flaws, but I'm not going to pretend that there is a flawless system that we can use instead. With your suggestion this is what would likely happen: (1) someone wants a specific book deleted; (2) they infer a general rule that would include that book, but none of the books they want to keep; (3) the discussion on that new, general rule would turn into a debate effectively about keeping that one specific book or not. In order words, I don't think we'd ever think exactly about general rules; and it wouldn't be that different than what we're doing already. It's nice to have congress, but what they do needs to be checked by the supreme court. We can't just legislate deletion policies and leave it up to only admins to execute it.


 * Perhaps what you'd like to see instead is more activity on the speedy deletion side? I.e., deletion of material that an admin can objectively determine does not fit the speedy criteria? Whatever the case, there is high value in having discussions about specific books: generally the truth comes out and minds change. MShonle


 * Okay. Perhaps it's apathy, not fear. So perhaps I should take on the task of widening the criteria for speedies. I'll have a look through all past VfDs, summarize the reasoning behind each decision, and add it into policy. I just find VfDs extremely predictable, and thus a waste of time. I just wish someone else would help out to write these policies. Really, we want less of them, not more, and they need to be clear and simple, else they'll be ignored. I thought my recent changes to Deletion policy were much clearer. Thinking about it, isn't WB:WIN conceptually similar to Deletion policy. Maybe I should merge them? - Aya T C 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. See Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy. It also occurs to me that the most important policy docs should be those which cover the functions which only admins can perform (i.e. deletion, blocking, user renaming and page protecting). - Aya T C 01:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Delay policy from when a Wikibook is created to VfD
User:Withinfocus brought up a very valid point that I think has been completely overlooked so far in the past. In particular, with the Harry Potter discussion, the discussion over the VfD status for the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter was started by a malcontent trying to stir up trouble in the first place. In this case User:Kappa has only two edits: Placing the  tag on the Harry Potter plots page and then the subsequent creation of the section for this Wikibook's VfD discussion.

In short, I consider the actions of this person to be tantamount to social vandalism and something that should be discouraged in the future. If somebody does this in the future, the VfD discussion should simply be removed altogether (perhaped archived, but I think that is too kind) and the VfD tag removed from the Wikibook as well. I'm not trying to set a specific number of edits that are necessary, but I do believe that a nomination for VfD status should come from a registered user who has at least some experience and time here on Wikibooks, specifically to avoid this situation in the future.

I also suggest that perhaps in the future we give a certain amount of time to a Wikibook from immunity from a VfD simply to give the authors a chance to try and put some content in or even reorganize the Wikibook. Give these authors a good faith 1 month to get up to basic standards (including blatant violations like a copyright violation or forking from another project or even within Wikibooks). Content in more established Wikibooks is free to be removed, but if you have a problem with the organization of the new Wikibook it should be done within that Wikibook, preferably on the talk pages of that Wikibook first. If you are going nowhere with the organization, then it should be moved to a VfD discussion.

Blatant vandalism of course will never be tolerated and should be punished as usual. A good faith effort to produce a new Wikibook, particularly by new users, should be given extra lattitude.

The Vote for Discussion page is a very powerful tool, and can be abused if not done properly. In retrospect, this whole discussion about the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter should never have happened in the first place, at least on the VfD pages. It is also a lousy way to encourage new users to try and contribute to Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 13:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be one month of immunity towards a VFD. The Muggles' Guide has been around less than a week and has already received heated debate over its structuring. There hasn't been enough time to even receive commentary on its specific structural attributes. A user came here to VFD it and left. That is unfair to persons like me who had actual intentions to do work before VFD was blasted on it. I have significant reluctance to work on the book since I now see it as having a chance at deletion. Book-writing motivation could be greatly increased if books could have a time of "stewing" where comments can be received before a VFD (i.e. please share your thoughts on structure at the Guide's main talk page). -Matt 14:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a good plan. I should note that a new user (one with even zero edits on a registered account) can always post a request for a more experienced user to put it up to VfD. Or, to encode it another way, requests for VfD from zero-edit users need to be seconded by a user with more useful edits first. There have been times that I simply removed a VfD tag because it was done by a vandal. I mean, think about that as a form of vandalism: you just put a VfD tag on there, and suddenly everyone is wasting time trying to defend it.


 * We should also have standards for what counts as a VfD. If someone "doesn't like" the book then that would not be good enough. If someone can't even provide a cogent reason for why the book should be up for deletion that that would not be good enough either. We should keep in mind precedent, too: For example, there were good reasons to delete Getting a Girl, and I think any policy should secure the Cookbook as a valid wikibook. MShonle 16:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is mainly to "codify" for admins what should happen, and to give a heads-up about a possible vandal attack avenue that I wouldn't have anticipated. If an admin wants to, they could take a discussion section and "freeze it" by throwing it into a template and then placing protection on the template, with a note that this discussion is "frozen" until the required time has elapsed.  Or even outright removal if necessary.  The idea that a VfD should be seconded is an outstanding idea.  I think any user names that have "red letters" (no user page) should also be suspect, but that can't always be depended on either.  I have seen some Ass Pus attackers put in a user page (although for what reason, I don't know other than to piss off somebody trying to clean up their c****).  Excuse me, I just dealt with one last night, and it seems to be more regular all of the time.  --Rob Horning 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Have we move-protected all the important pages now? I remember the page move attacks (e.g. renaming Staff lounge to Staff Toilet or something) were the most tedious to repair. On the VfD vandalism: someone put up the Vegan Cookbook for deletion, which I quickly removed... they kept trying to put it back up saying "it really *is* up for deletion!" but did not provide any valid reason for even deleting it. MShonle 17:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

speaking as someone with about 4 edits to my credit here (though maybe 500 on 'pedia now),I shall put in my penneth. Pedia seem very eager to delete things at the drop of a hat. I expect they do have a valid problem with the numbers of articles to be processed, but I presume that is a lot less of a problem here. Presumably people must set up books just for the hell of it, and might realise that it is even more fun if they get a months grace. But even so, my instinct there and here is to give people a chance to do something before instantly zapping it. Requiring seconder(s) for a delete vote sounds good.Sandpiper 20:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've updated WB:DP to state that only pages which have existed on the DB for more than one week may be added to VFD. If this should not work out, then we can increase the time to one month. Note this does not affect speedy deletions. - Aya T C 21:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)