Talk:VFD

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

See also: Talk:Vfd, Talk:VfD

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Sander123 11:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sander123 13:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Personally, I like the latter.

anthony (see warning)

Karo:

This is a serious thing ! I don't think it's fare that you got it all, when I got nothing.. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.192.215 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make your vote on Vfd[edit]

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

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

.. Disagree. This is not valid. The WP:VFD is the historical origin of the popularity of the expression "VFD" which is now common in discussions of editors of online content. It is not meant as an explaining article in itself to which this definition redirects. — MFH:Talk 13:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..

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

.. I don't agree. The point is not to redirect the user to WP:VFD, but to explain this meaning and its history. — MFH:Talk 13:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..

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

..
..

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

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

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

..
..

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

.. I partly agree with this. I think there could be external links in addition to WP:VFD ; google finds 53 000 pages for the phrase "vote for deletion". - — MFH:Talk 13:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..
..

5. No comment.

..
..

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

..
..

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

Keep. Yes, I think the explanation VFD = vote for deletion" should remain here. (My contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VFD&oldid=prev&diff=609948330 [I was not aware of this discussion] was deleted with the argument that disambiguation pages should only list links to existing articles and not self-contained definitions. I don't agree and I think on the contrary often the contrary is true and that this is very valuable content of WP. Also, there was a link to a relevant article, namely WP:VFD. So the argument "it's unlikely that such a page will be created" is invalid since that page already exist(ed). Also, since google finds 53 000 hits for the exact phrase "vote for deletion", I think this should be in the encyclopaedia.) — MFH:Talk 13:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self Referencing?[edit]

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

In my opinion these disambiguations are much less useful and those two pages should be turned into redirects. anthony (see warning) 00:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- So, CFD should redirect to computational fluid dynamics and RFD should redirect to rural free delivery instead of having info on the much less used Categories for Deletion? 132.205.15.4 01:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's my suggestion. I'm not confident enough people will agree with me though, so I didn't enact it. anthony (see warning) 02:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

VFD in A Series of Unfortunate Events[edit]

I don't mind that my edit was reverted because as I continue into the 10th book of the series (with a few more to go), I now see that there is more than meets the eye; there are many more V.F.D.'s than "Very Fancy Doilies!"

    "Duncan and Isadora tried to tell us about V.F.D.," Violet said, "but they never got the chance. We don't even know what it stands for."
    "It seems to stand for many things," Quigley said, flipping pages in his notebook. "Nearly everything the organization uses, from the Volunteer Feline Detectives to the Vernacularly Fastened Door, has the same initials."
    "But what is the organization?" Violet asked. "What is V.F.D.?"
    "Jacques wouldn't tell me," Quigley said, "but I think the letters stand for Volunteer Fire Department," Violet repeated, and looked at her brother. "What does that mean?"
    "In some communities, Klaus said, "there's no official fire department, and so they rely on volunteers to extinguish fires."
    "I know that," Violet said, "but what does that have to do with our parents, or Count Olaf, or anything that has happened to us? I always thought that knowing what the letters stood for would solve the mystery, but I'm as mystified as I ever was."

~ Ch. 8 in Book the Tenth: The Slippery Slope (A Series of Unfortunate Events) by Lemony Snicket, published by Harper Collins (2003).

(Me too, Violet, very mystifying!) It'd be interesting to try to list all of the V.F.D.'s I find in the whole series, just for fun; not on the official VFD page though. :)

--Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021: That sounds like a fun project – but as you say, it would not be something you'd add in Wikipedia! As for this page, there should not be more than one link for each bullet point. That's a general principle for disambiguation pages. More info here! --bonadea contributions talk 11:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]