text:
Wikipedia talk:Experimental deletion

Suggestions
-Harmil 21:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Run it through a spell checker.
 * Remove the images (there's no information contributed by them)
 * Reference and incorportate information from the various VfD reform discussions and proposals on meta.

 * On that last point, there is specifically:
 * Pure wiki deletion system (proposal)
 * Deletion management redesign
 * -Harmil 21:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The images don't get in the way either, the idea was just to provide an icon so that people can see that XD is being used at-a-glance. (and the same icon needs to appear on transcluded pages, because sometimes those pages might appear on their own, to someone who comes visiting, depending on the policy used). But make 'em smaller if you like.

 * Good plan on policies from meta, though let's not include every policy ever proposed all at once, 'cause we're actually going to test them. Let's only have a couple of XD tests at once, with losers being swapped out, and keeping the winners.

 * I've already linked to Deletion reform, which is doing a good job of getting summaries together.

 * See if you can apply one or more of those proposals!

 * (ps: on any spelling errors and so ;-) )
 * Kim Bruning 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you misunderstand my interest here. I wanted to suggest ways in which this page could be improved, but I have no fundamental problem with the VfD process as it exists, and thus have no particular interest in working to replace it. At worst, I think the current system is cumbersome, but that's a matter that's more easily addressed technologically (e.g. by providing a true voting interface with a talk page, rather than a free-form text blob). -Harmil 01:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh that's fine. Even if you feel VFD is perfect, playing around always helps improve insight into why a system is good, or how small improvements might yet be made :-) The exact layout of the page isn't super important btw (thanks for the tips though! ;-) ), though playing around with all kinds of tricks to build it is fun! :-) Kim Bruning 13:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I do hope this will be voted upon before this is actually implemented, seeing as it would be an extremely controversial step. Ambi 02:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey Ambi! :-) Nothing is being voted or polled on, becuase nothing is being implemented atm :-P . We have done some testing, with a little help from some of the RC and new pages Patrollers. That's the objective of this project. It's been kinda fun so far. :-)

 * Anyway, if you'd like to help out, gimme a yell :-) Kim Bruning 14:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OUW, signpost! Ok, fixing there and here.

Signpost article not quite correct
Experimental deletion is a project to learn more about mediawiki and how it can be used to help deletion. It is NOT a process -extant, proposed, or tentative-, and it is NOT a system to augment, deprecate or replace vfd at this point in time. It is exactly as the name says, a project that does experiments. Kim Bruning 15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep wikipedia tidy!
I think Ambi is complaining above, partially because she found some pages deleted using XD, but no one had cleaned them up to CSD or VFD. Do please clean up after you're done with your experiments! (Or ask an admin to do so for you, if you're not an admin). As long as you clean up, there's no harm done, but people might resent folks leaving their mess all over the wiki!

So, don't forget to clean up! (And I'll check in from time to time too).

Kim Bruning 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree completely. It's hardly a good test run of Pure wiki deletion system (proposal) if we 'clean up' less than a day after using it. As a (pseudo)blank page is hardly 'dirty' or causing anyone (except maybe deletonist-new-pages-patrollers) any harm - and we absolutely have to see what happens to articles 'deleted' this way over at least a short timescale. Some interesting bits already, some of which I unfortunately can't link to as examples as the pages have been speedied. But:
 * I blanked one page while the editor was still stuggling with wiki syntax (I should have check the time of last edit), and the blank was promptly overwritten with a new version on the page. Most likely they never saw the explanation in the history and just overwrote. So I put the explaination on their talk and blanked again. Page seems gone unfortunately, so can't see what would have happened next.
 * Blanked a list of (two) famous numbers, then Ambi has a bit more sense and redirects to List of numbers History 'Right' solution took two edits, on VfD my nomination would be three edits, Ambi's redirect vote another, and then need at least two more votes, then a closer, then the page to be redirected. Shows that in 'simple' cases, even if the nominator is 'wrong', the solution is much less effort.
 * Blanked a band page based on the article saying '1 album released', no airplay and the top hit on google being a site a mate of mine runs for the purpose of giving exposure to unknown bands. Fails 1,3,4,5,6,7 of WP:MUSIC and 2 is questionable - but more borderline than most cases. Ambi unblanks based on google (correct action for a disputed case) and moves the page. Now, if I were to dispute her revert, I think the procedure would be leave a message explaining why on the talk of the new page, and blank the redirect and the new page. History VfD equivalent here is perhaps simpler, as it gets to the discussion stage a step earlier with less actual action being taken. Time taken is still much longer though, see Votes for deletion/Koldfusion which I started before playing with XD.
 * Anyway, I hope you can see why it's useful *not* to 'clean up' - unless we have at least a week or so, and editors acting within the hypothetical WP:XD procedure, the 'experiment' is basically useless. --zippedmartin 22:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this kind of experimentation (although not the specific Pure-wiki system)... however, in the recent past there has been very strong opposition to any such experiments outside of VfD . Here I'm thinking of Category:Delete, overwhelmingly CfD'd earlier this month.  So one might want to be careful.  -- Visviva 05:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions
Can I ask a question on the fairly philosphical plane about the various blank-but-retain proposals?
 * What do people think about credibility? It is (imo) a key problem with Wikipedia. Blanking pages is all well and good and easy, but I imagine some tech-savvy person looking at the article's history that they just Random Pages-ed to. The article is called "Uggle", and they see that it used to say "Yo! Digg!". "This page intentionally left blank" doesn't quite cut it with them because it would still permit the article "Uggle" to exist, and no credible reference source would. They'll use Britannica instead. -Splash 02:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * A page like that can go to speedy delete rather than xd2. Also, admins are hard deleting most pages marked with the xd2 template, anyway. They're leaving the ones they're not certain about, and letting the normal editors hash them out (3 revert rule, et cetera). All that works fine, and uggle-like entries don't hang around long. Babajobu 09:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Lighter than VFD

 * VfD requires a new page to be created for discussion, this does not.
 * VfD requires the new page be linked(transcluded, but it comes to the same thing for this purpose) to another page.
 * What else?

Discussion

 * As a way of preventing Wikipedia from being a free webspace provider, pages could be deleted with normal, admin-only visible deletion after they have been unedited for some number of days(maybe 30). If there is disagreement, the objector only need edit the page to prevent it from disappearing. (suggested by JesseW 21:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

 * Isn't this like a glorified speedy tag? N (t/c) 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One important disadvantage is that En ventre sa mere and ELGG are now listed on Special:Shortpages. If this practice becomes more common that very useful utility page will eventually almost only list these deleted pages. - SimonP 00:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * A solution may be to have admins hard-delete XD2'ed pages after a couple days pass (or whenever they get around to it, there's no rush I suppose). Radiant_ >|< 12:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think XD2 works great. I've blanked about 20 pages would have just clogged up VfD before an inevitable consensus for deletion. After a couple days Usera:Ambi hard deleted a few. Babajobu 11:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have just deleted several pages with that template, and all were clear speedy deletion candidates, thus they would have never belonged to VfD anyway. So what is the point of reinventing and its variants? andy 11:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I noticed that. You're right, some of the articles I tagged with XD2 were candidates for speedy delete. Most were just transparently non-notable vanity articles. For now on I'll try to restrict the XD2 template to the latter type, and use for speedy deletion candidates. Babajobu 11:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I am failing to see the benefit of this idea. Beyond speedy deletion candidates, which should be deleted rather than having this tag applied to them, it is very subjective what else should be applied with this tag, and the resultant discussion is hidden away on the article's talk page rather than in a central location like vfd. I can envisage a time when it would become as difficult to keep up with the amount of pages that have this template attached to them and we end up with a situation as bad as, if not worse than, at present. What is the benefit of hiding the discussion away rather than having it transcluded in a place where admins can easily see and assess it? Also the idea that a consensus for deletion is "inevitable" beyond meeting the criteria for speedy deletion is widely subjective and open to much abuse and conflict.

Finally I object to the article being blanked in order that this tag should be applied, because then I have to look at the page history or follow another link to make sure the older content was actually deletion worthy. At least with the current delete or vfd tags they are applied above or below the existing text making the assessment slightly easier. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The original content is not visible, very much like deletion works today. (except normal editors can view the "deletion history" and restore in this case). No admins are needed, and no central location is needed, consensus and 3RR can take care of it. Kim Bruning 14:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved from /XD5
I've put a couple of non-notable articles in XD5. Though XD2 and XD4 seem close to the "Pure Wiki Deletion System" and good goals for the long term, XD5 can actually get the articles deleted in the current state of things, so it seems like it will catch on better in the short term. So I'm supporting XD5 for now. RSpeer 02:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Zap
Proposal by Xiong. While he says it's not an XD (as it does not involve deletion), it sure sounds like one to me. Strongly rejected so far, but I'd appreciate comments from the hardcore new-deletion-ideas crowd. N (t/c) 03:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Refining XD to only 1 option (lets pick one)
Can we just pick one of these to use collectively with support from WP:PWDS. I believe we should combine xd1, xd2, and xd4 into one accepted xd policy. xd3 seems like trouble, and xd5 can be handled through talk pages, for now. In my opinion, the template should resemble that from xd1:
 * no image (or very small and generic, the stylized xd does nothing but confuse. perhaps a red deleted icon?)
 * try not to confuse non-wikipedians with complicated terminology and policy.
 * a link to an extremely simplified and unified xd explanation with optional navigation to further details of generalized wikipedia deletion policy discussion.

See Template:XD, which adds a link to Experimental Deletion and Category:XD.

Lets archive xd1-5 and focus on using and refining one technique. ∴ here…♠ 18:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The "refined version" doesn't actually appear to delete anything. It certainly doesn't simulate PWD. I do agree we might trim down some proposals and add others. Why is there no XD page for uncontested deletions, for instance? Kim Bruning 08:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * If you mean permenantly deleted, one of the main tenents of WP:PWDS is that any deleted edit history is available and revertable. The pages in Category:XD have been blanked (deleted).  I'm not sure what else you might mean? ∴ here…♠ 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * That's not PWD. It's closer to the earlier proposed blanking methods (XD1 and XD2, IIRC) . Also: when are you going to clean up after yourself here? Kim Bruning 09:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Clean up after what, Category:XD4, of which you seem to be a fan? Remove the category (Category:XD) and the template ( XD ) and it is PWD.  The idea here it to allow self-analysis.  I tried to take the best points of all 5 proposed systems and consolidate them.  Also, your red link threshold trick will work with my consolidation, on purpose.  I would welcome your progressive critique more readily than your continued criticism.  ∴ here…♠ 09:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm I do appreciate the effort you put into this. I do think you should have it as a separate XD project. It's just a tad.. hmm... well, you can't really take over the whole of XD for a single plan eh? Could you make it into an XD6 instead? Thanks. Kim Bruning 13:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Some details still need to be changed, and I think I'll leave the pages in Category:XD alone for now.  Any thoughts on the template differences between xd4 XD4 and xd6 XD?  Perhaps they could be combined? ∴ here…♠ 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Jolly good! Don't forget to clear out all the pages to AFD now! :-) Kim Bruning 20:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (as in: the ones you deleted with XD(6) :-) Kim Bruning 20:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

 * Rather than send to AfD, I'd like to leave the pages intentionally blanked for now just as the pages in Category:XD4, xd5, and xd2.

 * I'm sorry, no, that's explicity not permitted by wikipedia policy. When you are done experimenting, you must clear the categories of the XD you have been experimenting with, by sending all the XDed pages either to articles for deletion or to speedy deletion. I promised to keep wikipedia tidy, if we don't, people will complain and shut down XD. Kim Bruning 03:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Will do. I hearby promise to keep wikipedia tidy as well. ∴ here…♠ 09:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you be alright with replacing the xd4 template with the xd6 template? A few editors revised the xd6 template while it was listed as the only option.  Essentially, the image is removed and the box formatted a bit.  I could then eliminate xd6 entirely. ∴ here…♠ 22:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would not be alright with this. Kim Bruning 03:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Model summaries

 * 1) Experimental_Deletion/XD1 (XD1/Example)
 * 2) *Blank the page, type in a standard message.
 * 3) *No template, No category, see deleted pages using whatlinkshere
 * 4) Experimental_Deletion/XD2
 * 5) *Blank the page, add the template.
 * 6) *XD2, Category:XD2, graphic and message
 * 7) Experimental_Deletion/XD3
 * 8) *Move page to contents Experimental Deletion/XD3/Trash/
 * 9) *speedy delete redirect
 * 10) Experimental_Deletion/XD4
 * 11) *Blank the page, add the template.
 * 12) *New idea to set stub display threshold setting in preferences/misc to 12.
 * 13) *XD4, Category:XD4, graphic and message
 * 14) Experimental_Deletion/XD5 (XD5/Example)
 * 15) *Add template wait N days. Approximation of Uncontested deletions (proposal).
 * 16) *New idea adds additional categories by day.
 * 17) *New idea adds reason parameter to template usage.
 * , Category:XD5, Category:XD5 29 November 2005
 * 1) Experimental_Deletion/XD6 (XD6/Example)
 * 2) *Blank the page, add the template. Approximation of Pure wiki deletion system (proposal).
 * 3) *New message box style without graphic.
 * , Category:XD6

Kim's Revision
 * 1) XD1 (Example). Just blank it. Then just put some words on to let people know it's not vandalism. Works on any wiki, anytime.
 * 2) Experimental_Deletion/XD2. A sophisticatized version of the above, using templates and cats.
 * 3) Experimental_Deletion/XD3. Simulation by hand of "move content to the trash-can namespace".
 * 4) Experimental_Deletion/XD4. Simulate the Pure Wiki Deletion proposal with a user preferences hack.
 * 5) Experimental_Deletion/XD5. Experiments with improvements to current AFD
 * 6) Experimental_Deletion/XD6. Proposal by User:here.

I would like to keep the model summaries on the project page, above the model details (as they were before this edit). Much of my editing here has been due to my own confusion upon visiting the page. Without these, it is confusing to easily see the differences between the 6 options. Anybody mind if I put them back in, as above? ∴ here…♠ 22:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I revised the summaries. I'd still like to put this back on the main page, but need to fix xd6 and make sure every type has a uniform demonstration page like Experimental_Deletion/XD1/Example.  Thanks for splitting these back up Kim.  I'm glad I've read back through them. ∴ here…♠ 06:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I'll take this lack of response as a no comment or agreement. Please discuss here before reverting.  Adding examples links to these summaries would be great.  ∴ here…♠ 04:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

 * As much as I enjoy talking to myself, I wonder if someone might comment on these summaries? If you've just found this page, do you have any thoughts?

 * Despite my request for comment, my above proposed summaries were rewritten without discussion. I would like to put the more detailed summaries presented above back on the page, perhaps with the descriptions added by Kim below.  I'll wait a few days for comment, and then go ahead and make the change.  ∴ here…♠ 22:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, summaries are a good idea an sich, but the chosen summaries gave little new insight. :-) Kim Bruning 20:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on how the above proposed summaries provide less insight than your revisions? I've re-added your revisions to this discussion for ease of reference.  I don't understand your apparent severe aversion to a detailed summary of a complicated page.  For now, I will revise only xd5 and xd6, as I have been referencing them from other locations.  ∴ here…♠ 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed
I've added proposed to this page and all subpages. If you look at WP:AN you can see people are confused about this. Superm401 | Talk 21:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for promoting experimental deletion to proposed status. However, I must decline at this point in time. I do not feel that experimental deletion should ever be proposed as policy. Kim Bruning 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe we agree in spirit; I'm not sure. I don't think it should ever be policy.  I have no objection to a proposal for them to be, which this page essentially is.  However, right now, the page says these are "experimental policies."  To me, that implies they are policies that are agreed upon for experimental use.  However, they are not policies at all (experimental or otherwise).  Therefore, it is wrong to call them such.  Clearly, people have been getting confused about this.  I don't think the uncertainty's acceptable. If you feel "experimental" is somehow less formal than "proposed", we disagree.  To me, policies that haven't even been proposed (let alone accepted) shouldn't ever be used, even temporarily.  However, as you can see on WP:AN people are using this as if it were (accepted) policy, which is a serious problem.  If you object to my solution to that problem, please suggest an alternative. Superm401 | Talk 00:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just reverted 2 related edits to the article. Kim's taking the article back to some ancient version refering to VfD and omitting xd6 entirely (thanks).  Also Redvers' changing the intro warning/comment about it being experimental back to the extended version.   The edit description stated 'per kim bruning', yet kim's article revert had included the extended version.  I think more explanation than simply Experimental use only is warrented on the main page. Feel free to discuss if you feel otherwise. ∴ here…♠ 21:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Plainly not experimental
In the last week or so, I've realised that some 40 articles were being 'experimented' on. That doesn't sound very experimental to me. I also don't fully understand the meaning of "experiment". It implies some temporaryness by the experimentor. -Splash talk 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing some of the older experimental deletions for proper AfDs. Proper deletion is a required part of this experiment, and an expected next step to an undisputed XD application.  All of this is a temporary attempt at feeling out difficulties and developing new ideas for application at Deletion reform ∴ here…♠ 22:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the major difficulty is that under the guise of this non-policy, people have been blanking pages in clear violation of real Wikipedia policy. See above. Superm401 | Talk 00:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not exactly blanking pages, replacing content with a detailed description of why the content was removed. If anything is remotely contested, the article is either kept or sent to AfD.  None of this has any intention of causing problems or breaking the principles behind real wikipedia policy.  ∴ here…♠ 01:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * None of the articles listed by Splash below contained any explanation of why they were "deleted" (i.e. blanked). Why should they?  After all, only one of the "experimental policies" mandates a reason.  Those people were just following "procedure".  Nothing was "remotely contested" for two weeks.  The reason: No one thought to look in the category of an unproposed policy.  There's a reason we have the AFD pages and the established speedy mechanisms.  People can find pages others are trying to delete!  That lets them remotely contest things.  Moreover, all of those policies ask that a reason be provided!  Even better, they have deletion criteria.  Oddly enough, the page has no link to Deletion policy or WP:CSD, which list that criteria.  I guess that's just part of "old policy" as this page refers to it. Superm401 | Talk 04:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll let you know how the Xperiment is going. I found Green technology, Golborne High School and Woe betide all blanked weeks ago and all perfectly decent stubs, even without the little bit of work I gave them. I also, bizarrely, found Category:Imperial Cancer Research as a subcategory to Category:XD5. Somebody active in this project absolutely must be making sure that the experiment is not having casualties like this since the articles drop almost completely off everybody's radar when they are blanked with an XD tag. -Splash talk 00:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks again for your help. Part of the intent with many of these variations is to allow for reversal of deletions.  Your discovery and reversion of these deletions is exactly how some of these proposals are intended to work.  Had you not found them, they would have been listed on AfD and perhaps also kept.  In my opinion, The articles you found were not casualties, but successfully contested deletions.  The original applications of the XD experiment were in good faith, as were your subsequent listings on AfD and reverts.  ∴ here…♠ 00:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If they had been listed on AFD, people would have noticed and been able to express their voice. If they had been tagged for speedy, an admin would have seen they did not qualify and either nominated them to AFD or just removed the tag. I can't see how what happened (articles were blank with no one noticing) is an improvement; I can see how it was in violation of established deletion and blanking policies.    Again, see above. Superm401 | Talk 00:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The were noticed, and opinions were expressed. Many of the articles were sent to AfD, as is the proper last step in any execution of this experiment.  Nothing is disappearing here.  Was any harm done?  ∴ here…♠ 01:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Green technology was noticed after containing only the text for 17 days; Woe betide and Golborne High School only the text  for 15 days.  That sickens me, and it is terribly wrong that this "process" encouraged it.  The harm was that genuinely valuable (albeit stubby) articles were not visible for over two weeks, and instead a boilerplate message saying that the articles were deleted (which is of course not true) was shown to users. Superm401 | Talk 03:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this worries me, that's why I've put clearer experimental tags on. People doing experiments MUST clean up after themselves, or XD will be closed by folks like yourself who are concerned over abuse, and rightly so! I have only a little time to check and clear categories because I have a lot going on besides XD. So once again, I urge people using XD to clean up, or face the loss of this privilege to experiment.
 * Each experiment has clear instructions how to clean up after yourself (or if you're so kind, to clean up after others). If you find any experiment lacking in such instructions, please fix it, or at least complain loudly to the experimenters.
 * See below for what I'll do. Kim Bruning 05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't expected to kick off quite so much with my comment, so it's unfortunate that I did not keep a log of my twto visits to the XD categories. But I speedied some, AFD'd some and restored some. More were deleted by some mechanism than were restored.

However, I also just found two whatlinksheres from XD1 that had been blank...since August 23rd! Kestral (good for a redirect) and Joe McGee, good for AfD. -Splash talk 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I went through you history and pulled the ones I saw into Experimental_Deletion/XD6/log -- though I didn't see any speedies? Perhaps that is a natural consequence of deletion. ∴ here…♠ 18:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I added my earlier, XD2 visit to the list. I dont know if you want them logged there or elsewhere. My speedies you can find via Special:Log, but I just did that and added them. -Splash talk 19:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear experimenter: Consequences of leaving experiments open
If you leave your experiment open (ie, forget to reset and send items on to CSD and AFD), you will cause people to distrust and attack the XD project (see above.)

We'll be checking the XD "bins" on thursday, be they cats or "what links here" pages. Any pages still there that are older than 48 hours and have no adequate explanation for being there... will be removed. And I shall smile at the people who left them there.

 * :-) Kim Bruning 05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Central Questions
I have some basic difficulties with the idea of this "experiment", as you may be able to tell from my above comments. :) Please humor my ignorance of the history behind this.
 * Well, the entire history is self-contained on these pages, but I'll summarise for you :-) Kim Bruning 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You know it's a drag to read through the entire page history, and try to figure out where else the idea was discussed. Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please try to address these concerns as best you could. I will have a much better understanding of the project afterwards.
 * 1) How did this project start? Was there consensus to initiate it on any major talk pages (i.e. Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, Wikipedia talk:(A/V)FD, or even Deletion reform)?
 * Not much consensus was formally required, mostly because the project does not aim to make any changes to wikipedia. But there was some community input after the signpost article. Kim Bruning
 * I disagree that no changes are being made. A significant number of pages are being blanked as part of these experiments. Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Crap. That's a should not happen happening right there. Since you've investigated can you tell me the scale? Else we'll have to make XD invitation only or so. That would kind of suck. Kim Bruning 06:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't investigated, but User:Splash has (see above). You can ask him more about it and there's a partial log. That page shows at least seven experimentally deleted pages have been kept in some form.  That's significant to me already. Superm401 | Talk 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sometimes mistakes are made while deleting. One of the objectives of XD is to investigate how to mitigate the consequences of such mistakes when they are made. So that's something that went right! :) Kim Bruning 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the exact purpose?
 * To host mediawiki experiments to do with deletion. Kim Bruning
 * First, that seems contrary to the stated purpose of the page, which says, "Experimental deletion explores new ways to deal with unwanted content on Wikipedia." I have also not forgotten the top comment, which says, "Experimental policies."  It doesn't seem to be focusing at all on experimental software changes.  I see no changes to Mediawiki described.  I only see only experimental procedures.  The page states, "When experimenting with any of these models..." and readily admits that no changes have been made to Mediawiki, saying, "These experiments might try to use only existing mediawiki features, but feel free to try to get code or patches for your personal XD methods accepted into the mediawiki code tree!"  If the page has its focus on software issues, why can't the experiments be done on test pages in sandboxes or user space?  I am forced again to the obvious conclusion that this is actually a series of social experiments, not technical ones.  Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The objective is to make creative and/or optimal use of existing mediawiki features, in part to discover what changes might need to be made to mediawiki, and to what extent. Sometimes you can also try out things that could be automated in clunky ways by hand, just to get a bit of a feel.
 * XD3 tries out a different organisation of the mediawiki deletion system, including applying on board data-structures to retain a kind of archive. It simulates the structure using existing mediawiki components... and a touch of elbow grease.
 * XD4 is a shot at PWDS using only features that already exist in mediawiki. Crazily enough, it even *almost* works! This suggests that only fairly minor changes need to be made to the source code to the extent that folks are actually thinking of diving in and doing them (incidentally getting us a couple more developers ). You even get a bit of a hint where to start looking.
 * XD1 is handy on quiet backwater wikis. It doesn't actually require any special permissions or anything (you could even new pages patrol as anon). Quite handy for vandalbusting on wikis without bureaucrats when all the stewards are in bed too - a situation that can pop up a couple of times every week. I actually used it once or twice on nl.wikinews when it was just starting out.
 * XD2 was just a fun thing to try out, what with templates and cats and built in mediawiki variables. I learnt quite a lot about using mediawiki, with frequent excursions to the manual to learn of new intricacies.
 * 1) What is being experimented on, other Wikipedians or the possible deletion methods?
 * Experiments are done on the Mediawiki wiki engine. Possible deletion methods are tried on the new pages patrol, where they will do the least harm. Kim Bruning
 * 1) When is the experiment going to end?
 * This page is not an experiment in itself. Rather, it hosts experiments by individuals. Typically someone can come along and experiment with the one idea-or-the-other for a period, usually not longer than a week at a time. Kim Bruning 00:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll make this perfectly clear. When will the last experiment "hosted" by XD cease? Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When people are done coming up with experiments. Kim Bruning
 * 1) If people are required to resolve XD deletions according to existing deletion procedure, what are the deadlines for doing so (for each deletion type)?
 * Originally "when you are done with your experiment", some people are for "1 week", now we'll just try to enforce 48 hours (unless someone insists they need that week :-) ). How's that? Kim Bruning
 * It seems an acceptable compromise for now. Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This comprise seems enough in itself to allow this experiment to continue. After said delay to guage effectiveness and reaction by the community, the pages are sent through AfD or similar.  The experiment is naturally both sociological and technical, as is the entire wikipedia experience.  ∴ here…♠ 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would certainly agree with you, which is why I'm extremely skeptical of Kim's claim that "Experiments are done on the Mediawiki wiki engine." Superm401 | Talk 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here speaks for himself. The experiments are on the wiki engine. If there's any intentional social consequence, it's that we might be able to get deletion to scale better and thus give people less stress. Kim Bruning 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) If they are not required to do so, how is this compatible with existing policies strongly sanctioning page blanking?
 * Those guidelines do not apply here. (Also, not all XD methods use page blanking) Kim Bruning
 * Are you trying to tell me rules against page blanking only have "guideline" status here? Why are people routinely blocked for repeatedly blanking, then?  Three XD experiments do use blanking, and that's too many already, as far as I'm concerned.  Why do the guidelines not apply here if this itself is not guideline, policy, process, or even proposed guideline policy, or process?  That's the logical gap I seem to be missing. Where does XD derive its immunity from Wikipedia procedure? Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you like, you can go break some mere guidelines while I wait here. I could use some more practice dragging people to the arbitration committee :-) Kim Bruning Did you notice that fouling up on a single line in some of the "essays" will get you banned, while messing up guidelines will get you into serious trouble at an rfc, while policies will only get you a mild slap of the wrist at AN/I if you break them many many times?
 * The reason XD has so far been "immune from wikipedia procedure" has to do with the way procedure is organised, which is really simple in practice (and neatly summed up at WP:TRI), but somehow takes folks ages to get their heads arond. Kim Bruning 06:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with that summary. To me, this page really is an example of "being a dick".  Try to see it from my perspective:  I find out there's this page that provides instructions on how to delete pages by erasing them.  No one agreed beforehand and it can't be disputed because it's not policy, just an "experiment".  Regardless, article pages have been sitting blank for weeks at a time because of it. Superm401 | Talk 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, can you please tell me who did that? That is certainly not the intent, and I would like to bar those people from using XD again. Kim Bruning 06:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See the partial log above. Unfortunately, that's the best info I have. Superm401 | Talk 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The log does not contain information on who is responsible for making this mess, so it's going to be rather hard for me to whack them over the head. Kim Bruning 21:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See . Superm401 | Talk 21:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

--Superm401 | Talk 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done! :-) Kim Bruning 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see my further comments above. I appreciate what you've said so far. Superm401 | Talk 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this clarifying edit a lot. Thanks. :) Superm401 | Talk 21:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Users
Here are some of the responsible, or rather irresonsible users. This only includes those who XDed and failed to return to one or more pages that were eventually kept(all of these had failed to return to the page(s) after two weeks). I haven't gotten to the pages that were eventually deleted properly, but not by the experimenters.: --Superm401 | Talk 21:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) (two weeks; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woe_betide&diff=29641773&oldid=28381019)
 * 2) (two weeks; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golborne_High_School&diff=29642701&oldid=28433448)
 * 3) (17 days; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_technology&diff=29642800&oldid=28238896)
 * 4) (two weeks; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_grimmerie&diff=29637570&oldid=28439692)
 * 5) (three months+; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kestral&diff=prev&oldid=21614040)

 * Present, tried in vain to feel guilty. I was under the impression that a longer delay (2-4 weeks) was appropriate and fully aware of my active experimental deletions.  See discussion under xd1 suggesting 6 months.  Glad this discussion clarifies things.  ∴ here…♠ 00:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty. This isn't a blacklist or anything.  Kim asked for it. Superm401 | Talk 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought I was asking for a blacklist actually. I'll certainly keep an eye out for these fine folks. Though if they come back, we probably just need to remind/explain to them that they can't leave pages XDed permanently. Most wikipedians are very reasonable people :-) Kim Bruning 03:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I've done this before too. Personally, I see no reason to come back to an XD'd article and put it on Afd.  Hard deleting an XD'd article is even worse- one of the main strengths of XD is that the history is available to anyone, and the "deletion" can be undone if there's disagreement.  I haven't seen any compelling arguments against leaving a page XD'd indefinitely. Friday (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is Superm401's concern, I think; it's mine at least. A number of perfectly good articles were 'deleted' by this process: until I came along and fixed this problem, the process received no scrutiny whatsoever. All the other deletion processes do. -Splash talk 04:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to do so, which means that unfortunately, you'd be in violation of wikipedia policy. However, if you like a certain experiment a lot, you could always copy it to a new page, and try to gain consensus to make it a guideline. Kim Bruning 04:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) They receive the same scrunity as every other edit. One can come by and redirect an article, or replace its contents with "GORGE BSUH IS A WEEENIE!!1!" with no special scrunity, and we accept this, so I fail to see the problem.  For those of us that like WP:PURE, this is just a way of approximating that without waiting for the software to catch up.  If a particular user is abusing XD, tell them why you think so and try to get them to stop.  Those who use it responsibly aren't hurting anything by continuing to do so.
 * In response to Kim Bruning, I don't believe for a minute that using XD is contrary to policy. If people use common sense, respect consensus, and don't edit war, XD helps, rather than hurts, the encyclopedia.  If people don't use common sense, don't respect consensus, and do edit war, this hurts the encyclopedia, with or without XD. Friday (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They do not get the same scrutiny other deletions do, pretty plainly. CSDs are crawled over, AfDs are on watchlists, CfDs, TfDs, IfDs, RfDs, CPs, they all get plenty of eyes. Once you add an XD template to an article, there is basically no-one watching the categories or the templates, or the articles or this project page. They fall under the radar and yes, that's a bad thing when it results in articles that should never have been nominated for AfD much less speedied or blanked being in such a state for 3 months! Plus, blanking pages is contrary to policy and would be a good way to get yourself blocked if you were an anon. -Splash talk 04:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, RC patrollers were keeping an eye on it when XD was started. Then I went on wikibreak and didn't keep asking the RC patrollers to keep an eye out. Kim Bruning 04:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * XD'ing a page (assuming you leave a template there) is no more "page blanking" than is applying a redirect. And it's a heck of a lot less extreme than actual deletions, which occur all the time, sometimes with unfortunately little scrunity.  In bad cases, XD can do harm, sure, but so can any other edit.  Your objections don't seem to be against XD- they seem to be against allowing anyone to edit.  Friday (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then let me be clear. My objections are against XD. I presume you understood exactly what I said just above about XD deletions being far below the radar, and I don't think that misinterpreting my comments is useful. If people turn pages into XDs no-one scrutinises them: for weeks and months at a time. I do not buy for a second that this is somehow commensurate with an AfD. If the editors here are going to insist that it is the same, then I shall speedy delete the whole thing to show you how much not the same it is: you'll notice right away. -Splash talk 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Geez, relax. I didn't intend to misinterpret you at all, sorry if it seemed that way.  You are certainly right- XD's get less scrunity as Afd's, for example.  But, as I said above, they get the same scrunity as any other edit, including replacing the entire article with a picture of a penis, or making a redirect.  We deal with such things through normal means and it works out ok, so I see no reason why XD is any different.  Friday (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is, that until/unless XD has a profile that attracts some proper attention (rather than people like me complaining), that lower level scrutiny coupled with a reluctance on the part of the participants to clean up after themselves is not an acceptable mix. When I see that reluctance to clean up turn up into an insistence that the editors are right not to do so, that too far. If you want to use this process properly, you need to lose the experimental designation and seek community support for it. Until you've received such support, you are operating considerably outside the bounds of the way we currently do things (yes, you know you are), and it is not reasonable to do so for lengthy periods. -Splash talk 05:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (ec) On second thought, I can see how people might say that using XD abuses the deletion policy. I don't happen to agree, but I can at least understand the argument, for those who interpret policy very strictly and literally.  However, in that case, it matters not whether a page is left XD'd for 5 minutes, 5 days, or 5 months- all are equally against policy.  Friday (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I negotiated a consensus to be allowed to conduct brief experiments, not to establish any particular XD method as a guideline. If you can negotiate a different consensus, be my guest, but please allow the XD pages to be used for experiments. If you want to establish new guidelines, copy over the relevant data to a page outside the XD space, and try and make a guideline of it there Kim Bruning 04:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Really? Negotiating a consensus on XD is news to me- in my experience, most editors aren't familiar with it.  The box at the top of the page explains it as an experiment, not as anything with any kind of consensus.  Is there somewhere I can read about the consensus you negotiated?  So far I've been taking the advice of the page and using this process "at my own risk".  I'm not trying to imply that how I use it is the same way anyone else is using it, or that anyone other than me condones my use of it.  So far, I've not run into any disagreements, but if/when I do, I certainly won't object to another editor un-XD'ing whatever I've XD'd.  Friday (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, most editors aren't familiar with it, ergo noone knows when you just blanked an article with XD. -Splash talk 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I checked with one of the fast software-assisted RC patrol teams when first introducing XD. They kept really good close tabs on it too! (to the extent that I think there's some complaints documented above asking rc patrollers to slow down a bit!
 * I'll ask for a mod to the current software if you like :) Kim Bruning 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That'd be great. -Splash talk 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Friday said:
 * You're right, applying XD6 (my current favorite) is not the way things are most commonly done, at this time. Afd's and speedies are the way things are most commonly done right now. I find XD6 preferable in some cases. I suppose I won't convince you that it's a handy technique, just as you won't convince me that it's not. I disagree, though, that it's not reasonable to do it, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument about why it would matter how long a page stays in that state. I follow harmonious editing principles, and my use of XD6 is a classic example of the bold/revert/discuss cycle, so I don't see the problem

I'll reply here, since we're discussing this still. I think I should re-emphasise my original point and set a few things straight: (PS. It's 05:52AM here, so you'll understand if I spend a few minutes asleep now.) -Splash talk 05:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not object to XD as an experiment. I think it has mileage — considerable mileage.
 * 2) I do not think that XD is at all commensurate with our other deletion processes in terms of scrutiny, by virtue of having a very small number of editors involved in it. I do think that to deletion is the correct comparison, since that is what is being sought.
 * 3) My original objection was, and is, that no-one at present appears to be overseeing this experiment. Noone is checking that articles XD'd should/not have been, no-one involved in the project has been taking responsibility for cleaning up the inevitable mistakes.
 * 4) It is not ok to disclaim that responsibility by saying "yeah but".
 * I was overseeing before. I'm sorry for having taken a wikibreak. I had already slowly and politely started urging people to clean up their act after my return. Your presence here has certainly helped speed that up Kim Bruning 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I finally broke down and recreated the wheel in my user space. Comments relevant to this specific discussion can be seen at User:Here/delete, but the entire page is an offshoot of my activity here.  Included are interesting historical comments from Brion and Jimbo back in 2003.  I'd love any comments / reactions.  Bascially, I agree wholeheartedly with Friday and think that the current experiments (excepting xd3 v.speedy, see xd3) take care of themselves as XD'd articles are discovered and/or sought, then reverted or submitted to further process.  Time limits seem unimportant to me, but 48 hours is certainly not enough time to guage reaction.  ∴ here…♠ 09:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Kim Bruning seems to have understood me. But if the other editors involved here are going to insist that not cleaning up after their mistakes is the right thing to do, then I will simply bring the experiment to an end by cleaning out the templates and categories a couple of time a day. -Splash talk 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Surely you don't mean you'll actually delete the articles? Or do you mean you'll revert them?  I don't see how this helps the project.  When I've XD'd, I've generally explained why on the talk page.  I'd hate to think people were going to run around reverting "on principal" without regard to the merits of the deletion.  Friday (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be within reason to revert it. But I mean that I will do the job for you: I will make sure of whether it was a CSD an AfD or a bungle. But I won't log it, I'm not feeling that generous. -Splash talk 17:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish you wouldn't. But, alas, I can't stop another editor from doing what they think is best.  Friday (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I won't if someone is checking that the mistakes are being fixed. You appear to be refusing to do so. -Splash talk 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, once the "cat is out of the bag", did anyone really expect XD would be used only the way one or two particular people think it should be used? I don't think I understand the apparent desire to "own" the XD process.  I remember realizing that PWDS could be approximated this way, and after that I discovered XD.  Anyone could make their own version of XD at any time, but I don't think you want that happening, do you?  Friday (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care if people invent new XDs, as long as they repair their mistakes along the way. I can't understand why you insist that it is ok to make mistakes and not check up on yourselves. -Splash talk 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not insisting on any such thing. I can only assume we have very different ideas on what's a "mistake".  Obviously, I don't think the XD's I've done are mistakes, or else I wouldn't have done them.  I also don't see the harm in leaving things XD'd- that's the entire point.  If things must be speedied or Afd'd after being put in XD, this process has no value, either as a practical technique, or as an experiment.  Friday (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The list of things at the top of this section are mistakes, adn someone in this project should have fixed them. You'll say "yeah but anyone could have done that" and we'll go in circles because it would have meant someone being aware of XD in the first place. -Splash talk 18:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I still take issue with you referring to my XD of Woe betide as a mistake. I thought the article warrented deletion and/or transwiki to wiktionary, you didn't and reverted my edit.  Had you not, someone else would have searched for Woe betide and found an easy link to this process and the full text of the article.  There are inclusionists around here than would likely call nearly any XD a mistake, just as they would most deletions.  I will be cleaning up my XDs, as I have pledged multiple times.  If it were my business, I would leave them to be discovered.  I will not be so called cleaning up after them daily, as that ruins guaging reaction to the experiment. ∴ here…♠ 21:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You get no reaction to the experiment. Nobody knows it's happening. You didn't clean up after your XD, you left a perfectly decent stub blanked for two weeks. Nobody has been cleaning up after the XDs, apart from me and perhaps one other editor. -Splash talk 02:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

XD and consensus
XD6 was recently nominated for deletion as a unapproved wikipedia process and violation of consensus. I would like to focus on the recurring consensus issues. Please limit responses in this section to ideas about consensus relating to XD process. I have one primary question, How is using a reversible-by-everyone process like XD6 different from removing partial content from an existing article?. Again, please limit this discussion to issues with consensus if possible. Thoughts appreciated. ∴ here…♠ 16:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no part of your bolded question that asks about consensus, unless you're really after the discussion at WP:PWDS. -Splash talk 16:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Blanking an article is a form of vandalism, and use of the XD process as it currntly stands amounts to article blanking, as all relevant content is removed. As such I have recently reverted all uses of XD6 on actual articels, and taken such further action on the articles as seemed appropriate and in line with current policy. DES (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish you wouldn't do that. Applying XD6 is not vandalism, it's a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia.  Treating it like vandalism is inappropriate and unhelpful. Friday (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my position is that actual use of this on real articles should be reverted on sight, and i will continue to do so until and unless there is a consensus supporting its use. Repeated use I will report on WP:VIP. DES (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, as for the consensus issue, to me it looks like XD enjoys approximately the same amount of consensus as Afd, speedies, or anything else deletion-related. In other words, there's no clear consensus for anything deletion-related at all. I wish people would think in terms of "how does this help (or hurt) the encyclopedia?" instead worrying about what "policy" allows. Wikipedia does not have firm rules; "policy" is ideally determined by how things actually get done. Friday (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. All policies should be continually evaluated by all editors for their usefulness to improving the encyclopedia.  Those that fail should not be enforced (minimal) and should be changed (ideal). Tedernst | talk 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is this supposed consensus documented? Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

 * Er, which supposed consensus is that? Friday (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You said, XD enjoys approximately the same amount of consensus as Afd. So where is this supposed consensus that XD enjoys?  Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

 * Thanks for clarifying. To me, the evidence is clear: XD is controversial.  So are Afd, and the various CSD's.  My point was that I don't see much consensus on any of these things.  Friday (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * AfD is used by a large number of Wikipedia users. XD has had zero publicity (I only knew about it because of running across an edit using the XD6 tag) and is used by what, five people? Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

- How is using a reversible-by-everyone process like XD6 less reliant on concensus than situations following removal of partial content from an existing article?. (clarified to address consensus. ∴ here…♠ 17:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is, people don't want to hear "common sense" arguments. What they're saying (I think) is that because XD has not been specifically blessed, it shouldn't be used.  I don't consider this a very valid argument, since that's just not how things work around here.  Much of what is now "policy" arose naturally from people just doing what they thought made sense.  Friday (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been "blessed" because it's blatant vandalism. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Please answer the question. How is reversibly removing improper content as an entire page any different from removing improper content as an entire paragraph. As has been mentioned before, Zoe's position is a slippery slope to any edit being blatent vandalism.  What you appear to be saying is that as long as I leave a two sentence stub, you are fine with this process.  In fact, we are leaving a detailed description of the process and how to retrieve the content thought improperly included.  ∴ here…♠ 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How is blanking an article without letting anybody know you've done it not vandalism? 216.234.130.130 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you actually seen the X6 template? It tells exactly what happened and why and what to do about it if you disagree. Tedernst | talk 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is, however, no notification anywhere else, and in the uses I found the "reasons" whre often sigle words and in several cases clearly incorrect. Regardless, ther is no community support for the use of this on actual articles, so it is revertable on sight. DES (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You're absolutely correct, it is revertable on sight, as are most other edits. And, like every other edit, if anyone thinks they might want to revert it, they should consider whether they think it makes the encyclopedia better or worse.  If you want to be able to find them, they go in the XD6 category.  Maybe the should go in the pages for deletion category as well?  That's easy enough to fix, I think.  Friday (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories/XD7
Come to think of it, why don't the XD methods use Category:Pages for deletion? Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I didn't see it on the talk page anywhere. Friday (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I made XD7 which does use Category:Pages for deletion. I haven't used it yet tho, I wouldn't mind some feedback on it in case there's a reason this is a bad idea. Friday (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * seems a harmless and potentially useful addition. ∴ here…♠ 04:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with here. Tedernst | talk 06:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the feedback. One thought tho- I hate to balkanize unneccessarily.  I wonder if that category should be added to some of the other XD methods also.  This may go a long way to appease the people who object that XD'd pages can't be found by normal means.  Friday (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. If you aren't opposed, I'd say just add the Category:Pages for deletion to xd6 or vice versa and remove one of them.  I would also recommend addition of the category to xd5.  Beyond that, I try to stay out of it to avoid Kim's wrath ;) (ha-ha).  I'd also like to move the log out of the xd6 subpage to Experimental Deletion/log.  Any other wacky different ideas to try with xd7?  ∴ here…♠ 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I added a few words on XD7 talking about different approaches to disposing of XD'd pages.  I'd previously been thinking about the idea of an XD that specifically includes "do not list pages on Afd or otherwise delete them" as part of "how to delete a page", but this may be controversial.  Altho, actually using any XD methods is apparently pretty controversial anyway.  Friday (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea, even if only to have on paper. It will of course be met with even harsher criticism than xd6 and the other so called blanking methodes.  Another variation would be to completely blank the page without leaving any explanation or link, at least then we could compare the relative value of using an explanatory template.  I've moved the log and updated with DES's recent reverts.  If anyone would like to summarize some stats on how many afd's, edits, etc this process has saved, go for it.  You may also attempt to find the harm this has caused, but I wish you good luck ;).  I'd say make xd7 specifically permanent and possibly xd8 a true blanking.  ∴ here…♠ 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added Category:Pages for deletion to xd6, and created xd8 as a true page blanking.   I'm like the idea about xd7 being explicitly permanent, but not sure how to word it.  Ideally, either xd5 (delayed) or xd6 (instant) could be used to arrive at the eventual permanence of xd7.  Any thoughts?  If you're reading this and haven't yet, check out PlayingDead for additional context. ∴ here…♠ 01:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Use of Category:Pages for deletion has been severely frowned upon by Cryptic, see explanation here, here and here. I am removing the category from xd templates and procedure. ∴ here…♠ 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"XD is vandalism"
What can be done to counter the "XD is vandalism" arguments? I recently XD7'd Rob Hooper. For those who consider use of XD in article space to be vandalism, does even that one qualify? It could have been speedied and nobody would have argued. In fact (contrary to my usual preference), I will speedy it in fairly short order if it doesn't turn into something real. Is there any possible objection to using such a method prior to a speedy, just in case? There's been some talk lately about how speedies that are too speedy cause harm. This seems to address that concern in a fairly painless way. Friday (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedied too quick to read. (earlier comments removed, will replace when AfD history is further researched)
 * Regarding vandalism, I think you raise an excellent point that xd methods can help to delay overly speedy speedies, while still sending the message that the contents are unwelcome. ∴ here…♠ 02:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent. The same exact point (having a reversible, transparent action that still makes it clear that the contents are unwelcome) was brought up over at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.  Perhaps consensus is building for this idea.  Friday (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, try Willie wumpa cheeks. Friday (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

history of wiki deletion process
I've collected what I could find on wiki deletion process. Hopefully this perspective will help demonstrate a precedent for process similar to current xd proposals (see both c2 and usemod, as well as wikipedia's origins). One of my favs is the original speedy page, Please understand that we mean no harm in deleting your page ... If we misunderstood, just go back and restore your content - it'll still be in the page history - perhaps accompanied by a bit more explanation. Vandalism? The history still needs much work, but it's much more than was available. see History of wiki deletion process. ∴ here…♠ 08:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI- I am trying to ascertain the status of this project from the point of view of the larger community over Wikipedia talk:Deletion reform here. cmh 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have some major problems with XD7
I have some major problems with XD7, and probably the earlier versions of this experimental deletion procedure.

On the one hand, the article is not really deleted. If this procedure were being used on a wide scale, it would result in lots of articles which still existed, which would no doubt have blue links to them on other wikipedia pages, and which, days or weeks later when everyone had forgotten about them, could and would be reverted to whatever their original low quality content was.

The real problem with this is that one of the primary ways, perhaps THE primary way, we get rid of bad articles is the New Pages list. Lots of people go through the list of the last 50/500/1000/etc new articles, looking for ones to improve/delete. Once an article's been around for days, it's fallen off that list and off everyone's radar, and may end up staying around for many months. Having deleted articles that aren't really deleted allows bad articles to be recreated without having to run the gauntlet of the New Pages list, which means nobody's gonna notice that "Bob Johnson Is A Fag" just got its XD7 tag reverted and is now back to tell the whole world about Bob Johnson.

On the other hand, the XD7 message does not tell the person reading it that he can simply revert it if he disagrees with it. Speedy deletions require administrators and are only done for truly worthless articles, AfD's require debate and administrators and five days, Prods require 5 days and specifically say that the prod tag can be removed by anyone who disagrees for any reason, and then they too require administrators to remove the article. The XD7 message will give new editors the impression that their article is gone and that's the end of that. "If a dispute arises, please restore the article's contents and list it on Articles for Deletion" is not a proper way of telling people that they can revert their article if they want, it sounds like just some new way of having their article deleted, especially to a new editor.

This effectively gives everyone the same ability that only Administrators have now, the ability to delete any article. The most immediate problem with this is that it gives anyone, right now, the ability to masquerade as an administrator, basically. What's to keep me from making up a fake template saying "This article has been deleted, do not recreate under any circumstance"? This template would only be quantitatively different than the xd7 one, not qualitatively different. What's to keep me from making my own reasonable sounding version of xd7, and throwing it up on articles all over the place which I don't personally care for? --Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have a template like what you described, .  I consider the fact that XD may be slightly daunting to a newbie to be a feature, not a bug.  If a newbie makes an article that's sufficiently bad that an experienced editor thinks it should immediately go away, we don't generally want the newbie undoing it, do we?  In cases like that, I try to engage the editor in question in discussion on the talk page, like a civilized editor should, rather than just going stomping off to Afd.  If they're interested in talking about it, they will discover that the "deletion" can be undone, but  frequently they will come to understand why the article isn't suitable and they'll no longer want to try to fight the deletion.  Now, for "Bob is a jerk" type articles, those are a non-issue- they should be speedied, as they generally already are.  The one thing that is a true disadvantage to XD is that links to the article still show up blue instead of red.  This could be fixed by a software tweak, described in more detail at WP:PURE.  Also, to address your last point- you could make your own version of XD- where do you think the various versions we have now came from?  People made them.  Friday (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xyzzyplugh. I understand the arguments you are putting forward, Friday, but I think that one user blanking pages does not helping to come up with a better deletion mechanism. I think that your personal preference to use XD7 doesn't constitute the continuation of an "experiment" but rather one (or a few) editors trying to manage wikipedia in a manner that doesn't agree with consensus. IMO the XD experiment ended long ago, and the result was that it didn't catch on. There should be debate about this process over at the Village Pump if it is to become a permanent way of deleting pages. -- cmh 19:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating your own xd variation would be fantastic, I encourage you to try your hand. If it works well, it may even make some waves in accepted policy -- if it is reckless or destructive, concerned editors everywhere will stop you before you can type xd8.  xd certainly influenced the development of proposed deletion -- and has the potential to further aid in wikipedia deletion process development.  You can see from prior discussion on this talk page that these issues have been raised before -- generally to the gain of wiki deletion process. ∴ here…♠ 21:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Friday, you're assuming that everyone who will be using xd7 has as much intelligence and common sense and wikipedia experience as you do. Once it became widely used, though, this wouldn't be the case, would it?   There would be people putting the xd7 tag in places where it didn't belong, either on articles which should be speedied, or on articles which shouldn't be deleted in the first place.  This is why the Prod template makes it so clear that the Prod tag can be removed by anyone for any reason, and why they're all checked by an administator before being deleted.  XD7 removes both these safeguards.  I think it's safe to say, though, that the reason XD7 doesn't say "feel free to remove this tag" is that then it would lose all its power as a deletion device.  It seems to me that this is a fatal flaw in what's being done here - XD7, no matter how the template is worded, is stuck being either too powerful, or not powerful enough, or both at the same time.  --Xyzzyplugh 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

XD redundant with the advent of WP:PROD?
With the advent of proposed deletion, XD seems to be redundant. I've moved the few articles that were still tagged as XD7 to PROD candidates. Would anyone object to my marking the page as inactive? Zetawoof(ζ) 03:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Evidently not. I'm gonna go ahead and mark this as inactive, and suggest that users use prod instead of XD methods. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * XD is for experiments. Duh. :-) Though, the centralised deletion methods are still there :-/ Kim Bruning 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Resurrecting XD
I propose that we give some of these others a try, as part of our continuing efforts to improve the deletion process. Specifically, PWD hasn't really been given a chance. Can we come up with a subset of articles to try the experiment on? It would have to be a subset that includes even new, uncategorized articles, which most of the articles put up for deletion tend to be. It should be something easy to define objectively, i.e. not "Computer-related articles" (does a porn website fall into that subset?) but perhaps something like, all articles starting with a certain letter of the alphabet. We might say, for instance, that all articles starting with the letter A, we will use XD1 on rather than Prod or AfD, from March 1 until May 1. Any other ideas? We should recommend it to the Village Pump and then roll with this. Experiments can help us decide based on practical experience whether an idea would work well, rather than just speculating. See Experiment. Absidy (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The current system of WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD seems to work well enough. From the descriptions I've seen of PWD, it looks as though it lacks any form of oversight, besides people watching the article. This frankly doesn't cut it - any deletion system needs to involve at least two pairs of eyes looking at the page before stuff goes away. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We allow people to redirect articles without having a second pair of eyes take a look at it. Blanking is not much different than that.

 * We could simply convert those deletion procedures into blanking variants. E.g., CSB, PROB, and AFB, which would be candidates for speedy blanking, proposed blanking, and articles for blanking, respectively. This way, even blanking requires a second pair of eyes. Oversight can take care of anything that needs total deletion. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Template:Prob. By the way, I am the same guy as Absidy, above. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly though is the point though, vs. regular deletion? Is it because a blank can be easily be "gotten past" by going to the history, while a regular deletion removes the page from the wiki, and can only be undone by an administrator (if at all, provided the files aren't eventually removed from the servers.)? Maybe the better thing to do is reform AFD instead of creating additional "AFx" boards. mike4ty4 (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical
In reference to this diff, I dispute the assertion that the advent of WP:PROD has rendered this proposal irrelevant. They are two totally different ideas, and PROD has not obviated the need for this implementation of pure wiki deletion. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of alternatives to AfD, including WP:PROD, were proposed and discussed. In the end, PROD was the one that had consensus support. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Experimental deletion


text:
Charles McLean Andrews

Charles McLean Andrews (February 22, 1863 – September 9, 1943) was an American historian, an authority on American colonial history. He wrote 102 major scholarly articles and books, as well as over 360 book reviews, newspaper articles, and short items. He is especially known as a leader of the "Imperial school" of historians who studied, and generally admired, the efficiency of the British Empire in the 18th century. Kross argues:
 * His intangible legacy is twofold. First is his insistence that all history be based on facts and that the evidence be found, organized, and weighed.  Second is his injunction that colonial America can never be understood without taking into account England.

Life and recognition
Born in Wethersfield, Connecticut, his father, William Watson Andrews, was a minister in the Catholic Apostolic Church. Andrews received his A.B. from Trinity College, Hartford, Conn., in 1884 and spent two years as principal of West Hartford High School before entering graduate school at Johns Hopkins University. At Johns Hopkins, Andrews studied under Herbert Baxter Adams and received the Ph.D. in 1889. He was a professor at Bryn Mawr College (1889–1907) and Johns Hopkins University (1907–1910) before going to Yale University. He was the Farnam Professor of American History at Yale from 1910 to his retirement in 1931.

He served as acting president of the American Historical Association in 1924 after the death of Woodrow Wilson, and then president in his own right in 1925. He held various memberships including the American Philosophical Society, the Royal Historical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and Phi Beta Kappa. He was elected a member of the American Antiquarian Society in 1907, and elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1918.

Andrews won the Pulitzer Prize in history in 1935 for the first volume of his four-volume work The Colonial Period of American History. He was awarded the gold medal, given once a decade, by the National Institute of Arts and Letters for his work in history, and he received honorary doctorates from Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, and Lehigh University.

He married Evangline Holcombe Walker; their daughter Ethel married John Marshall Harlan II, who became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954.

Andrews died in New Haven, Connecticut.

Approach to history
His Yankee ancestors had been in Connecticut for seven generations, so his interest in American colonial history, including the history of Connecticut, is unsurprising (his first book, The River Towns of Connecticut, published in Baltimore in 1889, was about the settlement of Wethersfield, Hartford, and Windsor). Yet Andrews was not uncritical of early New England.

Along with Herbert L. Osgood of Columbia University, Andrews led a new approach to American colonial history, which has been called the "imperial" interpretation. Andrews and Osgood emphasized the colonies' imperial ties to Great Britain, and both wrote seminal articles on the subject in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1898. Rather than emphasizing conscious British tyranny leading up to the American Revolution, in works such as The Colonial Period (New York, 1912), he saw the clash as the inevitable result of the inability of British statesmen to understand the changes in society in America.

Andrews' thorough research into archival sources, and a demonstration of scholarship through many books and articles, set a standard that led his colleagues to praise him as the "dean" of colonial historians. Among his students at Yale who went on to become colonial historians and future leaders of the "imperial" school were Leonard Woods Labaree, Lawrence Henry Gipson, Isabel M. Calder, and Beverley W. Bond, Jr.

Quotation
In 1924 he wrote:

A nation's attitude toward its own history is like a window into its own soul and the men and women of such a nation cannot be expected to meet the great obligations of the present if they refuse to exhibit honesty, charity, open-mindedness, and a free and growing intelligence toward the past that has made them what they are.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Charles McLean Andrews


text:
BRN

The initials BRN may refer to:
 * Bahrain, IOC country code
 * Barisan Revolusi Nasional, an independence movement in Thailand
 * Berne Airport, Switzerland, IATA airport code
 * Brunei, ISO 3-letter country code
 * Bulk Richardson number, in meteorology
 * Bunte Republik Neustadt, a former micronation in Dresden, now a festival

title: BRN


text:
Category:Myiarchus

Myiarchus is a bird genus of the family Tyrannidae.

title: Category:Myiarchus


text:
Valentine Winkler

Valentine Winkler (March 18, 1864 – June 7, 1920) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as a Liberal for Rhineland from 1892 to 1900, and again from 1900 to 1920. Winkler was a cabinet minister in the government of Tobias Norris. His brother, Enoch Winkler, was also a member of the provincial legislature from 1888 to 1899.

Winkler was born in Neustadt, Grey County, Canada West, and educated at public schools in the area. He moved to Manitoba in 1879 after the death of his father, and worked in his brother Enoch Winkler's lumberyard. In 1883, he began his own grain and lumber business in Morden. He began farming in 1888. After the incorporation of the Municipality of Stanley in 1890, Winkler was chosen as the community's first reeve. He served in this position until 1892. In the same year, the village of Winkler was established in Manitoba, named after him. He ran a grain elevator and lumber business in the community. Winkler was also an active freemason.

He was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in the 1892 provincial election, defeating Conservative candidate N. Bowman by 186 votes to 74 in the constituency of Rhineland. The Liberals won a majority government in this election, and Winkler served as a backbench supporter of Thomas Greenway's government. He was re-elected over Bowman by an increased margin in the 1896 campaign.

The Liberals were defeated in the 1899 provincial election, although Winkler retained his seat with a victory over Conservative candidate W.J. Potter. He resigned his seat in 1900 to run for the House of Commons of Canada in the 1900 federal election, as a candidate of the Liberal Party of Canada in the riding of Lisgar. He narrowly lost to independent candidate Robert Lorne Richardson, 3,392 votes to 3,143. Winkler's son later wrote that his father was not keen on entering federal politics, but ran at the behest of Clifford Sifton, a prominent cabinet minister from Manitoba.

Twelve days after the federal election, Winkler was narrowly re-elected in a by-election to serve Rhineland again in the provincial legislature. He defeated Bowman again, 185 votes to 174.

Winkler was re-elected by an increased margin in the 1903 provincial election, and again in the elections of 1907, 1910 and 1914. In 1914, he defeated future Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba William Johnston Tupper by 132 votes. The Conservative administration of Rodmond Roblin governed the province throughout this period, and Winkler served as a member of the opposition.

In 1915, Roblin was forced to resign from office after the Lieutenant Governor found his ministry guilty of corruption in the tendering of contracts for new legislative buildings. Although the Liberals did not command a majority in the legislature, they were called upon to form a new administration. Tobias Norris became Premier of Manitoba on May 15, 1915, and appointed Winkler as his Minister of Agriculture and Immigration.

A new election was called in 1915, which the Liberals won with a landslide majority. Winkler defeated Tupper a second time, and was retained as Agriculture and Immigration minister in Norris's government.

Winkler was an activist Minister of Agriculture. He passed the Settlers Animal Purchase Act, which allowed new settlers in Interlake to purchase cattle on credit, and the Seed Grain Act, allowing municipalities to purchase seed on credit. He was also responsible for Manitoba's Farm Implements Act and Producer Dealers Act.

Winkler died of diabetes while campaigning for re-election in the provincial campaign of 1920. It may be noted that insulin was not discovered until two years later.

Winkler's son, Howard Winkler, was a federal Liberal Member of Parliament from 1935 to 1953.

title: Valentine Winkler


text:
Dale Maharidge

Dale Maharidge (born 24 October 1956) is an American author, journalist and academic best known for his collaborations with photographer Michael Williamson.

Maharidge and Williamson's book And Their Children After Them won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1990. It was conceived as a revisiting of the places and people depicted in Walker Evans's and James Agee's Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. Also with Williamson, Maharidge wrote Journey to Nowhere: The Saga of the New Underclass, which singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen has credited as an influence for songs such as "Youngstown" and "The New Timer".

Born in Ohio, Maharidge was a staff writer for The Plain Dealer and the Sacramento Bee. It was while at the Bee that he formed his partnership with Williamson, who was a news photographer for the paper. The pair have traveled and lived among the rural poor as they documented the underside of American prosperity. Maharidge has also contributed to publications including Rolling Stone and The New York Times.

In 2011, he published Someplace Like America: On the Road with Workers, 1980-2010. His latest project is Bringing Mulligan Home: The Other Side of the Good War which was published in March 2013.

Maharidge attended Cuyahoga Community College, Cleveland State University, and Harvard University, the latter as a Nieman Fellow. He has taught journalism at Stanford University and is currently a tenured professor of journalism at Columbia University.

He lives in New York City and Petrolia, California.

Selected works
Books by Dale Maharidge include
 * Journey to Nowhere: The Saga of the New Underclass (1985)
 * And Their Children After Them: The Legacy of Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: James Agee, Walker Evans, and the Rise and Fall of Cotton in the South (1989)
 * Yosemite: A Landscape of Life (1990)
 * The Last Great American Hobo (1993)
 * The Coming White Minority: California's Eruptions and the Nation's Future' (1996)
 * Homeland (2004)
 * Denison, Iowa: Searching for the Soul of America Through the Secrets of a Midwest Town (2005).
 * Someplace Like America, Tales from the New Great Depression (2011). Foreword by Bruce Springsteen. May 2011.
 * Leapers (2012). A novella.
 * Bringing Mulligan Home: The Other Side of the Good War (2013), a World War II book.
 * And Their Children After Them: The Legacy of Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: James Agee, Walker Evans, and the Rise and Fall of Cotton in the South (30th Anniversary Edition) (Seven Stories Press, 2019)

Audiobooks by Dale Maharidge include
 * The Dead Drink First (2019)

title: Dale Maharidge


text:
Talk:Threepence (British coin)

I am a complete novice as far as collecting old coins goes. I have in my possession a silver threepence from the Tudor dynasty dated 1562 with a portrait of Elizabeth 1st, left facing with the tudor rose behind her. Does anyone have any idea of its value, rarity or where I might find out more information on these coins ? Any information would be gratefully recieved.

Rhyming slang
Should it not be pointed out that thrupenny bits is common slang for a womans breasts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.31.33 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I second the suggestion. More specifically, thrupenny bits is rhyming slang for tits; commonly, though not necessarily only, female mammary glands. The addition could be made in a sidebar Cultural Associations; however, an authoritative source would need to be found.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Verification
I have a fair knowledge of coinage, and boast a rather large encyclopedia of the history of the British Mint. From what I have seen, the information is rather accurate, however I cannot really vouch for the Irish threepence. The only information I think may need changing is that the early Edward IV coins included a profile bust, not a front. I am not certain of this fact, so somebody may need to double check it.

Why not at Threepence?
Why is this article not at threepence (a redlink as of this writing)? Why the extra-long name, inconsistent with Wikipedia naming style (half crown, shilling, dollar)? --Quuxplusone 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1953ThreePence.jpeg
Image:1953ThreePence.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SilverThreepence.jpeg
Image:SilverThreepence.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1931 threepence.jpg
Image:1931 threepence.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken out of circulation
I think it is still legal tender. the sixpence was taken out in 1982 or something but I think the thruppence is still legal.

SimonTrew (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually the three pence coin ceased being legal tender on 1 September 1971. Maundy threepences are still technically legal tender but not issued for general circulation and thus their collector value is much higher than their technical face value.  2001:558:6040:9:691F:3CBC:95F7:7C7A (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical error: three penny coin or three pence coin?
It sounds grammatically odd to me to speak of a "three pence coin". It is I think a three penny coin. Just like a ten pound note (not a "ten pounds note") or a four horse carriage (not a "four horses carriage"). Opinions? 86.170.122.205 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Grammatically it's odd, but the coin itself says "three pence" on it, so it isn't odd to use the construct " coin" where "threepence" is the name. The question is, is "threepence coin" an actual phrase used in the UK, or do they just refer to "a threepence", and when using with the word "coin" do they say "three penny coin"? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is commonly called a Thrupence or a Thrupnybit which are the shortened versions of both Three Pence and Three Penny Bit. Unibond (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Armeria maritima or thrift
The Popular culture section of that article states: "The British threepence coin issued between 1937 and 1952 had a design of thrift on the reverse." If this is wrong, could it be corrected? I looked at the appropriate years in this article and, frankly, it’s far too complicated for me to consider editing. But I remember seeing a lot of threepences with the plant on what I used to think of as the picture side, yet there’s no mention at all of the plant in the 3d article, which is peculiar. Boscaswell  talk  03:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 * @Boscaswell: Better late than never. "Thrift" is mentioned at . Bazza (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 * woo-hoo! And the photo brings back memories - I remember seeing those coins with the thrift on it a lot, growing up.  Thank you.  Boscaswell   talk  08:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course the choice of Thrift was a pun on saving money. BioImages2000 (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Threepence or thruppence
Pre-decimalisation, nobody ever said "threepence". After decimalisation that would have meant 3p. BioImages2000 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 * @BioImages2000 How do you know that? Do you have some reliable sources you can add to the article? Bazza 7 (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know cos I was there. I don't have any sources (not my field) so that was why I put it in talk. BioImages2000 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @BioImages2000: I was there too, but am as unreliable as you are for Wikipedia's reliability criteria. Like you, I only remember "thrupence" for pre-decimal amounts, but that's not to say people living in other parts of the country didn't say "three-pence". Bazza 7 (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Threepence (British coin)


text:
List of baryons

Baryons are composite particles made of three quarks, as opposed to mesons, which are composite particles made of one quark and one antiquark. Baryons and mesons are both hadrons, which are particles composed solely of quarks or both quarks and antiquarks. The term baryon is derived from the Greek "βαρύς" (barys), meaning "heavy", because, at the time of their naming, it was believed that baryons were characterized by having greater masses than other particles that were classed as matter.

Until a few years ago, it was believed that some experiments showed the existence of pentaquarks – baryons made of four quarks and one antiquark. Prior to 2006 the particle physics community as a whole did not view the existence of pentaquarks as likely. On 13 July 2015, the LHCb collaboration at CERN reported results consistent with pentaquark states in the decay of bottom lambda baryons (Λ$0 b$).

Since baryons are composed of quarks, they participate in the strong interaction. Leptons, on the other hand, are not composed of quarks and as such do not participate in the strong interaction. The best known baryons are protons and neutrons, which make up most of the mass of the visible matter in the universe, whereas electrons, the other major component of atoms, are leptons. Each baryon has a corresponding antiparticle, known as an antibaryon, in which quarks are replaced by their corresponding antiquarks. For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark, while its corresponding antiparticle, the antiproton, is made of two up antiquarks and one down antiquark.

Baryon properties
These lists detail all known and predicted baryons in total angular momentum J = $1⁄2$ and J = $3⁄2$ configurations with positive parity.
 * Baryons composed of one type of quark (uuu, ddd, ...) can exist in J = $3⁄2$ configuration, but J = $1⁄2$ is forbidden by the Pauli exclusion principle.
 * Baryons composed of two types of quarks (uud, uus, ...) can exist in both J = $1⁄2$ and J = $3⁄2$ configurations.
 * Baryons composed of three types of quarks (uds, udc, ...) can exist in both J = $1⁄2$ and J = $3⁄2$ configurations. Two J = $1⁄2$ configurations are possible for these baryons.

The symbols encountered in these lists are: I (isospin), J (total angular momentum), P (parity), u (up quark), d (down quark), s (strange quark), c (charm quark), b (bottom quark), Q (charge), B (baryon number), S (strangeness), C (charm), (bottomness), as well as a wide array of subatomic particles (hover for name). (See Baryon for a detailed explanation of these symbols.)

Antibaryons are not listed in the tables; however, they simply would have all quarks changed to antiquarks, and Q, B, S, C,, would be of opposite signs. Particles with † next to their names have been predicted by the Standard Model but not yet observed. Values in parentheses have not been firmly established by experiments, but are predicted by the quark model and are consistent with the measurements.

JP = $1⁄2$+ baryons
† Particle has not yet been observed.

[a] The masses of the proton and neutron are known with much better precision in daltons (Da) than in MeV/c2. In atomic mass units, the mass of the proton is whereas that of the neutron is

[b] At least 1035 years. See proton decay.

[c] For free neutrons; in most common nuclei, neutrons are stable.

[d] PDG reports the resonance width (Γ). Here the conversion τ = $1⁄2$ is given instead.

[e] There is a controversial discovery claim, disfavored by other experimental data.

JP = $938.272$+ baryons
† Particle has not yet been observed.

[h] PDG reports the resonance width (Γ). Here the conversion τ = $1⁄2$ is given instead.

Baryon resonance particles
This table gives the name, quantum numbers (where known), and experimental status of baryons resonances confirmed by the PDG. Baryon resonance particles are excited baryon states with short half lives and higher masses. Despite significant research, the fundamental degrees of freedom behind baryon excitation spectra are still poorly understood. The spin-parity JP (when known) is given with each particle. For the strongly decaying particles, the JP values are considered to be part of the names, as is the mass for all resonances.

title: List of baryons