I voted on a subpage (linked from the Vfd template), but my vote doesn't show up on the main page. Just thought I should bring this to your attention. I left it as is so that you can see what happened (in case this doesn't make sense). -- Aidje 00:51, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

How long should the vote remain open?[]

  • I say 7-10 days. WhiteBoy 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A week seems sufficient, barring a lengthy debate. --SparqMan 22:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A week if the vote is unanimous, 2 weeks if it needs more discussion. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Riff. --Imperialles 23:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree --Fade 23:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • agree --Eion 04:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VFD -> AFD[]

Wikipedia's VFD has recently been renamed to AFD (Articles for deletion) to distinguish it from IFD and TFD. Should we also rename our VFD to avoid confusion for Wikipedians? - Sikon 06:36, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Now why'd they do that? I was getting used to Vfd. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:50, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • They discuss it pretty thoroughly on their AfD talk page. I admit it was a jarring change for me, but it kind of makes sense. -07:01, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I don't see a reason to change it here, and as we're not Wikipedia, we're not entirely bound by their rules, so I say keep Vfd. Now's our chance to individualize ourselves. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:06, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Why not use bullet lists?[]

I was wondering why we don't use bullet lists on listing these? Why do we use subsections when there's no information under it? For example:

  • Well even though it takes up more room, you know whats on the chopping block. Maybe after archiving, they can be reduced in size. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:24, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, whatcha think of this look? WhiteBoy 07:47, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • That works. Keeps the page small by reducing the ended votes, and keeping the still active ones large, I think you got it. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 21:06, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Heh, well, someone else changed it back to all smaller font, and it stuck. Fine with me either way...just didn't like the big font from before. :) WhiteBoy 09:30, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

November 2005[]

instead of...

November 2005[]



This seems to fall more in line with normal formatting to me. What do you think? WhiteBoy 04:38, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Simplified deletion for fanon?[]

Currently, the majority of VFD'd articles deal with possible fanon, which quite clutters the VFD page. The scenario is identical: either nobody can present a source and the article is unanimously sentenced for deletion, or someone digs up a source and the article is nearly unanimously kept.

What of, instead of putting possible fanon on VFD, we instead make a page for centralized discussions of possible fanon? For example, if someone thinks an article is fanon, they add the link to, say, the article's talk page to the "possible fanon track" page, then the article is deleted in X days if nobody can present a source. This way, VFD will be used only for controversial subjects like categories (e.g. "Grey Jedi characters") or non-factual articles. - Sikon [Talk] 13:56, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Is a good idea, would be matter of changing the {{fanon}} tag to warn that the article will be deleted soon if no sources are presented. To avoid admins having to watch daily and delete what haven't been sourced in X days in the Category:Possible fanon, the procedure could be: mark as fanon, watch yourself if source is provided the next days, and if not, mark as speedy: {{deletebecause|Is proved fanon}}. For the time to wait, I vote 2 days, I think it is enough because there will be an aditional delay since the user marks as speedy deletion up to an admin finaly deletes the article. Any more ideas? This could be applied just taking note of the procedure and having agreement from admins --Thinortolan 14:55, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I like this idea. I see only one way to improve it, and that is putting a system in place to prevent fanon articles from being replaced. I'd like to create locked redirects under the title of the deleted fanon page that go to a locked page that simply states "The subject you have entered has been listed as non-notable fanon and deleted. Do not attempt to restore the page under the title you have entered or any variation thereof, and do not insert content related to a fanon subject into a legitimate article. To dispute this decision, please contact an administrator with acceptable proof of this subject's canon status." This would end messy situations like the "Ninjara" fiasco. —Darth Culator (talk) 15:53, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Sikon, I think it's a fine idea, but does it require its own page? These discussions can happen on talk pages. Darth Culator, we already have frl to lock and redirect to the list of fanon.
    • Yes, but Frl redirects to the List of fanon creations, which is reserved for fanon that is at least marginally noteworthy. By putting an FRL on fanon that isn't recognized anywhere else, we'd be inviting the garbage posters to add it to that list, thus giving it a degree of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. We need to send the garbage spewers a clear and unmistakeable message to "take your nonsense someplace else." —Darth Culator (talk) 02:23, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I really like Culator's idea. I think a fair amount of List of fanon creations are on there, not because they're in any way noteable, but because we've started frling somewhat indiscriminately. Also, I'm not sure for most fanon we need to set a time limit - perhaps instead, it will be deleted if X registered users concur that the subject is fanon. If five registered users all say it's fanon, chances are it really is fanon and will be deleted, regardless if we give the article five days or five minutes. jSarek 06:28, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

January 2005[]

Military Classes[]

I removed these seven entries and just redirected them all. I can't even recall why I put them up for VFD in the first place since they were just simple merges... Doh! --Esplin 02:08, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

February 2006[]

Can we get rid of the article Bumani_Exchange_Corperation as it not only is spelled wrong, It also isn't needed as the Exchange page mentions that it is a dummy group. For the record i'm not sure how to vfd which is why i'm asking here Phillowe88 19:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, that one can be speedily deleted as a mispelled duplicate. If there's an article you want to send to VFD, edit it by putting the text {{vfd}} at the beginning. — Silly Dan 19:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah fair enough. I'm reluctant to mess with stuff i don't know on here since it can wipe out good information. Phillowe88 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Would the admins in charge of the vfd section please remember to strike closed votes?!?! KEJ 11:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


How do I vote? Gonk123 (verobrain) 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Go to the individual voting pages for each article, linked at the bottom of the page. You may vote there. - breathesgelatinTalk 19:08, 17 October 2006 (PDT)

Turn into forum?[]

I'm wondering if using the forum format might be a good way to run this page. That way, it's easier to tell which VfDs have had recent votes/comments and which haven't. Thoughts? jSarek 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How long?[]

This is probably written somewhere, but I can't find it. What is the time limit before one can renominate an old VFD? And before anyone says anything: no, I'm not talking about any of the ones I just "lost".--Valin Kenobi 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think we've set one. Repeatedly nominating an article when we've voted keep would be counted as disruptive editing, but we've renominated at least one article immediately after closing its first VFD without consensus. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Grebleips's aides renom[]

I've tried several times to renominate this for VfD on the grounds that there's nothing in it but "Grebleips's aides aided Grebleips", but can't get anything except the old debate from last year. Can someone help please? MartinMcCann 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I kludged it by (a) adding the template as {{subst:vfd}} and (b) changing the link so it pointed to WP:VFD/Grebleips' aides/Renomination. Maybe someone who knows what they're doing could fix the VFD template or make a new "VFD renom" template? —Silly Dan (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. MartinMcCann 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, there are instructions on {{vfd}} on how to do that already. Silly Dan. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Has anybody started a vfd archive for 2007? —Xwing328(Talk) 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm curious about the TC archiving as well. My user page has a red link ("Catalogue of unnamed vehicles") and I'm curious where the page went (assuming it was deleted, why?). I haven't been active here in a long while so I couldn't keep track. If anybody knows what happened to the page or where its TC discussion is archived, please let me know. Thanks. - Esjs(Talk) 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Nevermind. I found my answer here and here. - Esjs(Talk) 05:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Why was this page moved to trash compactor? I'm not mad, just asking why.--Windu223 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"users active in community" ?[]

Rules: 1. Only registered users who have been active in the community may vote on TCs

How do you define "users who have been active in the community"? Xalard 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Skewed voting[]

I've never really looked at the TC before (not until an article I created got deleted....and rightfully so.) But I worry about the mindset of the people on here. I notice that it is the same few people and they almost always vote for deletion. Now I am sure that this is because most of the articles truly need deleting. But I hope that this is not simply a majority rules decision, since a majority of people that frequent the TC page are probably more in favor of deleting. If there is a strongly opinionated minority (more than one person of course) I think that you should be hesitant about deleting since deleting often results in the complete destruction of the article, including history (as I found for my deleted article.) I wasn't even aware my article was up for deletion until the discussion was over. Like I said, I would have agreed (given new info from the comic series it was based on). But it would have sucked to have an article you worked hard on permanently deleted and you not even being aware of the discussion because you only check wookiepedia once a month.

One example of an article that fits my concern is the Category: Non-Force-sensitive Lightsaber Users. Yes it would seem trivial to most people, but when an ewok picked up luke's 'saber in a Legacy of the force book and started spinning out of control with it in low gravity, I wanted to know how many other non-Force-users have tried to use one. I was surprised and pleased to find the category listed here. Where would I find this info if not for here. The vote is currently 15 to 3, and it is the same 15 that vote for all other deletions. I hope that you recognize that the voting is skewed and that minority rights are important to protect. Stepping off wordy soap box now. IthinkIwannaLeia 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Policy[]

Should a link be added for Wookieepedia's Consensus Policy? --Boot Lover/Riverdale Chauffeur (Wanna Discuss Something?) 20:30, July 2, 2018 (UTC)


Should this be in the Wookieepedia maintenance category? --Boot Lover/Riverdale Chauffeur (Wanna Discuss Something?) 03:30, August 15, 2018 (UTC)