Talk:VFD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Talk:Vfd, Talk:VfD


See Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references for why the entry for Votes for deletion was deleted again. Jay 08:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello,

I vote to keep the reference to Votes for Deletion. VFD is encountered quite commonly on this site, and unfortunately unintelligible on its face. The natural place to look for a term you do not understand is in the encyclopaedia.

Although I agree with the general trust of the policy, namely to not make it unduly difficult to copy Wikipedia material to other places, this is not such a case. VfD is simply a term in need of an explanation, wikipedia is as good a place as any. I think most people would agree that Wikipedia is enough of a World Wide Web Phenomenon to justify a few lemma's. Quite a few less notable site get there peculiarities explained. See for example Slashdot trolling phenomena, Slashdot effect, Slashdot subculture.

But we can make the self reference a bit less obvious, if there is a genuine concern, we can change the text to:

"The on-line encyclopaedia Wikipedia uses a democratic system to decide on conflicts. The abbreviation VFD is a common shorthand there for Votes for Deletion."

Sander123 11:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

This isn't the kind of self reference that the MoS advises against. This is a navigational aid that's necessary -- I just disambiguated half a dozen links here (and a dozen more to Vfd, which now redirects here). I don't like having Wikipedia business in the article space either, but considering how people link, we need something. IMO, the real problem is VfD, but that's too big for me to tackle right now. -- Toby Bartels 02:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

We're back to square one with Docu and Hypernovean's edits. Please read through all the discussions so far and check whether your edits are appropriate. Jay 14:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with you Jay. Now its gone again :-( Why does this one give so much discussion?

Sander123 13:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are solutions to this which address all the concerns above:

  • Adding the {{in_Wikipedia}} template [1]
  • Using an external link and explaining in a manner which makes sense to someone who's never heard of Wikipedia. [2]

Personally, I like the latter.

anthony (see warning)

[edit] Make your vote on Vfd

This page is noteworthy on Wikipedia for the reason that it has the longest edit history for the shortest page ! Vote here on what you think regarding the mention of Wikipedia:Vfd which will accordingly make changes in policy in the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references meta page. Jay 10:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. There should be no mention or any links to "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" because the page about the VFD acronym belongs to the article namespace and not the Wikipedia namespace

  • ..
  • ..

2. The wikilink to "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" should be mentioned at the top of the page in italics, but this should not be part of the bulleted points inside the disambig.

  • ..
  • ..

2. bis The wikilink to "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" should be mentioned only through a template (e.g. Template:In Wikipedia), but this should not be part of the bulleted points inside the disambig.

  • ..
  • ..

3. "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" should be mentioned as a wikilink just as any other of the bulleted points in the disambig.

  • The voting doesn't work very well at the moment, does it? Anyway, I do not believe that there is any reason not to include VfD among the disambiguation links in VFD. And there is no reason to use an external link, either; after all, I do not know of ANY other external link to the "Wikipedia:" space. -- Mike Rosoft 11:50, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mike. I don't really care if this should be an external or internal link. I understand the argument for external, and if people care, then by all means keep it external. But I do think vfd merrits a place among the bullet points. Sander123 12:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I do not understand that argument. I agree that references to Wikipedia namespace are usually irrelevant. But (before the last edit) there were, as far as I know, three pages containing such a reference (excluding template messages such as {stub}) - VFD, RFD, and Sandbox - and in my opinion they were all relevant. -- Mike Rosoft 18:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

4. "Votes for deletion" should be mentioned only as an external link - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion

  • ..
  • ..

4. bis "Votes for deletion" should be mentioned as many other TLAs without an external link, but a link to Wikipedia.

  • ..
  • ..

5. No comment.

  • ..
  • ..

6. 4 bis + 2 bis (Add your vote there as well).

  • ..
  • ..

I don't understand this poll. I want this. Where do I vote? I assume that any votes to violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references are invalid until there is consensus to eliminate that policy. anthony (see warning) 00:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Self Referencing?

How is it that CFD and RFD don't come in to the same revisioning? They also reference into the Wikipedia namespace. (and helpful people keep fixing the broken external link into a self reference) 132.205.15.4 03:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • In my opinion these disambiguations are much less useful and those two pages should be turned into redirects. anthony (see warning) 00:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • That's my suggestion. I'm not confident enough people will agree with me though, so I didn't enact it. anthony (see warning) 02:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and the related Template:Selfref. -- Netoholic @ 18:28, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)