Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion phrases

This means that both "vanity" and "neologism" have different meanings on wikipedia than they do for the rest of the world, which is problematic. Pcb21| Pete 11:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that's sort of true in the case of vanity, as on VfD we use the word in the sense of vanity press rather than the more general meaning. But this is a valid meaning outside Wikipedia too, and the context makes the meaning clear for old hands. This page should help clear the meaning up here for new hands.
 * In the case of neologism, I think the word has the same meaning here as elsewhere, but that the explanation here confuses literal meaning with meaning as in significance. The meaning of meaning is similarly affected by context. Perhaps we need to rephrase this for clarity.
 * Good luck, semantics is never easy! Andrewa 19:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe "Transwiki" comes up enough that something should be said about it, although I'm not exactly sure what. - RedWordSmith 20:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Is the current explanation not enough?   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks okay to me now. -RedWordSmith 15:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone should mention the strong/weak modifiers people sometime add to their votes (and also that a strong delete does not mean you are stupid) cesarb 00:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While it might have been used as such around here for a rather long time, does nobody know that "POV" or "point of view" is actually a noun, and not an adjective? The phrase "inherently point of view" makes no sense in English. Reworded as "inherently biased". Chris 04:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, POV is commonly used as an adjective - it's a Wikipedia neologism, you're fighting a losing battle :p ··gracefool |&#9786; 02:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People don't mean what they say
For instance, when many people say something is "non-notable", they don't actually mean "I've read the current guidelines and think this article violates them", rather they mean "I don't think the article is notable enough". ··gracefool |&#9786; 02:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redundant?
This page doesn't seem to say anything that Deletion policy doesn't already say, and it says it better. Dan100 13:12, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to disagree - someone in a recent vote on VfD mentioned that this page is actually more representative of how VfD operates, and that seems about right to me. - RedWordSmith 20:54, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is useful and distinct from the Deletion policy, in that the policy defines what the criteria are for deletion, this page is a representation of the terminology used by people expressing their opinions on a particular article. Think of it as a glossary of VfD jargon. Thryduulf 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Easing server load, shortening the notice, and consolidating the guides

 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Guide to Votes for Deletion. Uncle G 18:06, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)