Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


F7 - split into sub-criteria to improve clarity[edit]

Looking at criteria F7 there are several bullets, each with different requirements, different templates and different tagging periods. I think this could be meaningfully and usefully simplified by splitting into sub-criteria F7a, etc. similar to how criterion C2 is organised.

My proposed organisation would be (criteria abbreviated for clarity):

  • F7a Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag [immediate deletion]
  • F7b Non-free images or media from a commercial source, where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary [immediate deletion]
  • F7c Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image [deletion after 2 days]
  • F7d Invalid fair-use claims [deletion after 7 days]

Note that I am not proposing to change any of the criteria, only clarify the presentation of them so that they are easier to refer to and easier for people to understand what requirements apply to which images. Particularly it should make it clearer to uploaders why their image has been tagged for deletion.

I will link to this proposal from the talk pages of the relevant image deletion pages. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • When a file is tagged for deletion under "F7a" and "F7b", the same deletion template is used in both cases. Also, "F7a", "F7b" and "F7d" all tend to get the same deletion summary in the log message. I think that it would be a good idea to use separate templates and different variations of the default deletion summaries. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Separating them to give more concrete reasons is completely fair. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the lack of opposition here, I will make the reorganisation in a day or so unless objections are raised now. Reorganisation of templates is a good idea, but I don't think that needs to happen before the reorganisation? Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How will Twinkle handle this change? With the "generic" version still be acceptable until twinkle can be upgraded? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually think about tools (I don't use any), but as this is just clarification of presentation rather than a change in any criteria I don't think that tagging with the "generic" version for a while would a problem. A year down the line might be a different matter though. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of CSD G13[edit]

EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (Clarification of CSD G13)[edit]

This conversation is the grouping of multiple disputes which can be found at the administrators noticeboard (main conversation), my personal talk page (where it all began), and a brief topic at Articles for Creation's talk page. Please do not post at any of them and instead converse here. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This request if for a changing of CSD:G13's rules. They currently cover:

"Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months."

It is requested that be changed to specify what edits do not reset the 6 month count. Minor edits such as bots adding categories and other bot edits should not reset the 6 month count.This is all up for change and modification. A bot adding categories does not make the article any less abandoned, therefore should not stop the article from being tagged as abandoned and deleted. This issue spouts from the recently populated Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template. This category was filled by a bot in December, but most of the articles within it haven't been edited by a human in a year or so. These therefore should be deleted. Any changes or additions to this request are happily welcomed. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Pinging all involved in previous debates @Salvidrim!: @Tikuko: @Hasteur: @DGG: @JohnCD: @Ronhjones: @Chris troutman: @A fluffernutter is a sandwich!: @Anne Delong: @Tokyogirl79:

The precise wording should be:TBD

Comments (Clarification of CSD G13)[edit]

  • For speedy deletion, we shouldn't ask people to make judgements. Making it automatic as possible is ideal. While I'd be okay with excluding bot edits, anything else puts too much doubt in the process. There is minimal harm in a draft hanging around for 8 months instead of 6. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree and think the straight interpretation of 6 months un-edited from the current date is the safest and most expedient interpretation to make. As pointed out sometimes pages get lost or forgotten about. Perhaps a new user (which is why we have AFC in the first place) accidenally removes the AFC submission template, and the user thinks that they're done with it but because it's not in any of the monitored workflows it sits there untill someone finds it lying there If a automated process comes along to tag the article for one reason or annother with a maintenance category, that means that within 6 months of that edit there could be someone uses that maintance category to drill down a specific type of gnoming (hunting for badly wikified articles, hunting for some sort of article). It should also be noted that the foundation has said at many times that disk space is cheap (despite the doom and gloom fundraising headers). I would have seen a case for this back two years ago when the community authorized G13 and we had approximately 250 thousand drafts that were over the 6 month window, but as of this writing we're only sitting on 4 thousand drafts that are 100% eligible for G13 under the stright "as it's printed" interpertation. That's approximately 120 drafts that would be nominated for G13 a day, which is much more reasonable and encourages editors to take a look and in fact there is Category:AfC_postponed_G13 which indicates that an editor looked at the potential G13 nomination and saw a possibility in it.
    • TL:DR Oppose changing the rule as we are not under a deadline to get these potential articles deleted from wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm torn -- on one hand, my eventualist tendencies make me agree with Hasteur's view that "there is no deadline", there is no rush to delete these articles, and whether it takes 6 or 12 months is of little concern. On the other hand, it seems to me that the spirit under which G13 was established (deleting drafts that have not been actively improved in some time, which is to say "abandoned") would lead to the conclusion that miscellaneous bot edits shouldn't be considered relevant in determining whether a draft is abandoned or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  05:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I like your reasoning here. I completely agree we are in no rush, but little bot edits shouldn't really affect the status of abandoned. If an article is abandoned, its abandoned. And because this is G:13 they can easily be restored by request. More importantly the articles I was trying to delete were never going to make it through AfD anyway (since Hasteur has got them undeleted see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adler bug. I had deleted this article per G:13, he restored it, submitted it and now has it up for deletion again. There was no purpose to that.) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Want to put the Bad faith away? I've already made some improvements to those pages, but when you have a tree stump protruding from your eye, any sliver in someone else's eye is fair game for attempting to extract. Plus using G13 only causes burecratic problems down the road if these editors come back and ask for them. If you had spent the proper time in reviewing these, you might have tagged them correctly as user blanked, or other things besides G13. Hasteur (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I tagged them as G13 so if they ever wanted it back they could, something you're all for. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) Some were user blankings, some were outright hopeless ones, some actually have references in them and references have been found. Hasteur (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

      • Also, as far as I know there's only a handful of bots that actively traverse the AfC project pages so it doesn't mean we're going to end up with hordes of pages stuck in almost-G13 limbo. But if you wanted to go on a G13 binge, the category Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has plenty to knock yourself out on that have either languished as a "AFC draft" with no change for at least 6 months or have been declined without any improvement for 6 months. These are prime targets for G13 nomination, but as mentioned by Anne, some volunteers run drogue on these "just became eligible" drafts to look for ones that could be saved. In short, you spent time nominating for shoddy reasons, I requested refunds because it's clear your reasons were questionable at best, and I'm dealing with the drafts so as to give those that have potential a 3rd set of eyes for consideration. Hasteur (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • At the time that the db-g13 criteria was established, there was considerable discussion about how it would be applied. The consensus at the time was that when drafts were found to be abandoned:
  1. the draft creators would be notified,
  2. then a time delay would be applied to give the original editors time to begin editing again or ask for help
  3. then still-unedited drafts would be placed in a category and other editors would be invited to improve and submit them for approval, or manually tagged for copyvio, historymerge, etc.
  4. after a further delay to give time for the previous step, any remaining drafts would be nominated for deletion under db-g13.
I would agree that automatic edits such as bot tagging or dating should not count as real edits, but only if the above process has been followed. In my opinion, editors finding abandoned pages that are not labelled as such but which have in fact not been edited by a real person for more than six months should not delete them under db-g13 until the above process has taken place. The fact that there is no process for facilitating this at the present time only means that one should be developed. I agree with Hasteur that there is no rush on this because the drafts are all not picked up by search engines. I also ask that any action that would result in the deletion of these drafts be delayed for a few months, because the draft rescuers are fully occupied right now with the tail end of the giant project to check through 50,000 old drafts, which have been whittled down to about 7,000 left now in the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation area. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Now he has set his bot HasteurBot (talk · contribs) in reverse to remove all of the very useful categories from the pages, without admin approval thinking it will solve this issue. This is ridiculous. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If you had even bothered with, you know, reading instead of spouting accusations you would have seen Sorry folks, but some users have decided that the category was good for hunting for G13 nominations. As I see this as a direct harm to the project, to the drafts, to the advocates of these potential drafts, and to the community at large, I am undoing my tagging of these articles. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Blast_from_the_Past. But hey, if it prevents you from causing more harm to these potential articles then I consider it a roaring success. Only when you put down your fait acompli gun, will I consider re-surfacing these pages. As it stands right now the blast furnace of bad faith you emit tell me quite clearly that you cannot be trusted to do the right thing with respect to these articles. Tit for tat complaints are not going to get you anything productive. Hasteur (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Not only can I, and I will, browse through todays HasteurBot (talk · contribs) contributions and find G:13;s but more importantly I never saw admin approval for this run through which is a serious problem. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support- Miscellaneous bot edits should not reset the counter. It's clear that "abandoned" means abandoned by humans, and automated edits by bots have no bearing on this. Reyk YO! 06:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reyk True, but a bot task to raise visibility of pages that were not being looked at by any AFC volunteers or the author of the AFC page because it was not being tracked in the AFC workflow should clearly not be immediately taken from "Nobody's looking at it and it's not being tracked in any defect categories" to "Send it to G13 because the page hadn't been edited in over 6 months before the bot added the defect category"? Hasteur (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur: I only sent ones that had no chance of passing through AfC to a G:13. That's what you forget. But that's not what this conversation is about This is for changing the G:13 rules and not old disputes. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 07:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You imported it when you pointed out that I removed the rails you were using to cause problems. Trying to hoodwink several users by saying bot edits does not explain why your actions are disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have way to little time to read this discussion after having read the one on AN and WT:AFC. I do not know how this discussion has gone/been but based on the other discussion I felt I had to write something at least, and this place seems to be the place to do it. I agree with Hasteur that G13 should only be used if no edits has been done in the last six months. (tJosve05a (c) 08:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Jose05a and Hasteur, no edits means no edits. G13 is harmful enough as it is without making it even more so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as rigorously as possible. The idea was never to make a cheap edit to avoid listing under G13 and being put back in the queue for another 6 months. No edits, whether bot or human, that do nothing to improve the article beyond its abandoned state should be allowed to reset the clock. And by that I mean such edits as ading stub tempates, cats, mainteance templates, or doing typos and CE. The spirit of the creation of G13 was aimed at authors who think they can create some nonsense, drop it in the lap of AfC and clear off and not come back. They misguidedly think that AfC will turn their drafts into articles. Some people at AfC need reminding that AfC is not the ArS Article Rescue Squadron. Any admin who is doing his job properly will soon decline a G13 if he comes across one that stands a genuine chance of being picked up by someone and turned into a real article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a solution in search of a problem. The current rules are nice an unambiguous. Adding potential - even if minor - ambiguity to solve no real problem is a step back rather than forward. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Martijn Hoekstra:I'll quote Gigs: "I'm really beginning to hate this sentiment. It's used to rebut just about any proposal, and it says very little. Proposers spend a long while typing detailed descriptions of why a change might be beneficial, only to be dismissed with such a flippant and nearly meaningless sentiment as "solution in search of a problem"…[This is] a general comment on the proliferation of proposals getting shot down on these grounds which boil down to 'the status quo is just fine, change is scary and unnecessary'". Original at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Revisiting past proposal – Viewdelete userright. 15:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiyarbepsy (talkcontribs)
In this case, I do believe that change is unnecessary. I'm open to be convinced though. To what is this a solution, and why is that thing a problem? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
What benefit do we gain from clarifying the rules to disclude bot edits from resetting the clock? Sometimes it's just a single bot edit that triggeres renewed interest in a page (by making it show back up on watchlists). Complicating the CSD patrolling admins jobs by changing "No edits to the page for at least 6 months previous to the nominating edit" to "No edits to the page for at least 6 months prior to the nomination excluding bot and minor annoyance changes" means that the admins are going to be slowed down in their patrolling of the CSD backlog. Furthermore I think we have G13 nominations in hand as our current volunteer pool and repetive processing tools are handling the backlog perfectly well, and there's no upside (as far as I can tell) from complicating the deleting admin's duties by changing the text. Hasteur (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It may be worth mentioning that the idea to have mass bot deletions of pages that truly met the G13 criterion by recent edits alone was opposed by the community. So ... basically, I support per Kudpung and per my comment about denying bot deletions; admin eyes equals admin judgement. Steel1943 (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Steel1943 Yes the community has overwhelmingly opposed automated bot deletion, however the community has endorsed (and WP:BRFA has approved) a collection of tasts( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot).
      1. look through AFC submissions for pages that are eligible for G13 under the strict interpertation that we haven't yet notified the creator for
      2. If you find one notify the page creator that their page is in danger of being nominated for G13
      3. Log the page name and the creator to come back 30 days from now to see if the page is still eligible for G13 (so as to give the page creator or other interested parties time to make an edit to the page)
      4. If the page is still unedited after at least 6 months + 30 then nominate the page for CSD:G13 and let an admin verify that the page was truly unedited for 6 months before the bot nominated it for G13
      5. If the page was edited between the time that notice went out and it was checked back on, then remove the notification record from the internal DB and terminate.
    • This does mean that the page can go stale, the bot notices it, the page gets a small edit, goes stale again, the bot notices again, and so on. We're extending oil tankers worth of good faith by letting a single edit (even one that changes a single whitespace character) reset the clock. Should it? Perhaps. That's why we have human eyes on the backlogs of G13 eligible and G13 nominations so that if we see the same page show up for G13 eligibility several times only to have it escape by the skin of it's teeth then we'll know to use other forms of broom sweeping (such as subjecting it to a WP:MFD debate). Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I got the impression from the original discussion that bot edits weren't meant to be relevant for G13, that we were meaning the criterion to make exceptions for human edits only. This was my position in the original discussion (sorry that I can't find the link), and looking at the criterion just now, I was surprised to discover that this wasn't in its text. Bot-tagging with db-g13 ought to ignore pages recently edited solely by bots, since we might need to make some exceptions and leave everything up to humans — we admins are sometimes careless and might well mindlessly delete a page without noticing that a recent bot edit ought to be accounted for, so g13 ought not be applied unless the admin's checked the situation personally or unless it's been tagged by a human already. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the only edits which sould count towards this CSD are ones which are plausably an attempt to bring the AFC closer to being accepted. Minro edits which clearly aren't intended for that should be excluded. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That would require judgement that is probably unsuitable for a CSD criterion. Also, if this was the community's intention then they would have written the criteria to apply to articles that are unimproved, not articles that are unedited. Finally nobody has demonstrated a need to interpret the criterion differently to how it was intended when approved. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      The main rule of the CSDs is: When in doubt, don't speedy delete. In this case, I can say that bot edits and category/stub tag tweaks not plausably attempts to bring the AFC closer to being accepted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Just to clsrify: I believe that a rule that "any edits which are not intended towards bringing an article draft closer to acceptance" should be excluded, would be too subjective. However, for us to come up with a list of such cases, and explicitly exclude them, would be acceptable - and in this case, I support the exceptions I stated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support And in fact it is my sense that excluding automated tweakings was always the meaning of the discussion that led to G13. In practice, "oh look, that was just a bot template dating" is not a difficult, subtle, nor ambiguous call. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems that this would require unsuitable extra judgement from the deleting administrator's side. It usually does not hurt to have an abandoned draft around for a couple of extra months. If you have a sudden urge to have a specific page deleted more quickly than permitted by G13, then the page can be listed at MFD. If not, just tag it with {{db-g13}} a couple of months later instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, clear that the intent was "abandoned by humans", no reason not to clarify that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I thought the original intention was to exclude bot edits from the timing. I can't see any reason for 'that was only a bot tweak' to be a 'judgemental call'. It's a bot edit or it isn't. OK, that calls for a judgement between 'yes' and 'no', but if admins can't be trusted to make a decision like that, what the hell are we here for? We can decide that an article titled 'Shawn' and consisting of 'Shawn is awesome' is to be deleted as A7 - or should we not be deciding things like that? Should we be taking the awesome (claim to significance...) Shawn to AfD instead? 'Is it a bot or not a bot?' is one of the simplest things to decide - given that bot edits are marked in the history and that (correct me if I'm wrong...) bots tend not to make widespread content alterations to Drafts. I would be very interested to know if anyone other than perhaps DGG does go into AfC or Draft to find things to rescue - and how many rescuable things they have actually rescued. I've got two or three (listed on my user page) that I thought looked worth saving. So far, they're no nearer viability than they were. Anyone interested in finding the refs that the author couldn't (and I can't) - have a go at them. Please... Peridon (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - while there is a valid argument for trivial edits (bot or otherwise) to be excluded, there is also no harm in resetting the counter. So, I am more or less neutral on the exclusion of such edits from resetting the counter... Either way, I strongly object to drafts that were never submitted for review being deleted under G13. Every draft should receive a human review, and that shouldn't have to fall on an admin doing maintenance deletion. A drafter not figuring out how to submit the article (or even realizing they need to) should not be used as a technicality for deletion without review. That contradicts the whole purpose of AfC - to help new users. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Which is why I propose that these G13's only be submitted by a human, standing in as an informal review. If the human tager believes the article has could be improved he should take the responsibility of improving or finding someone to improve it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 98.74.168.58 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm fairly neutral - but if we decide to ignore bot edits, then maybe I can also suggest that we use the bots to initially message the creator much earlier - say 2-3 months. The creator may not have left WP by then and we could possibly get a response. It does so often seem that abandoned drafts go hand in hand with abandoned editors. As for rescue - I think I have rescued one to date (I've deleted too many to count). I do wonder why we have lumped this deletion process into the speedy section (where's the rush, the page has been there for 6 months), maybe it should be more of a DraftPROD process - put up a final notice on the page and the draft article - then delete 7 days later, then like any PROD it can be undeleted on request. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I too can see either view as acceptable, but we do need to decide. For most bot edits, I agree that they should;t be seen as reseting the clock, because most of them have no impact at all on the content or the editing. For this particular bot, I think that moving the category might well require the additional notice, as there would have been no previous expectation of the editor that anything needed to be done ever. For all manual edits, however trivial, (or manual page moves to clarify the title), they should reset the clock, because it does need to be automatic , considering the number of items to be dealt with. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I believe the spirit of G13 is constructive edits by a human who is consciously choosing to work on the article; I do not believe bot edits show any intent by anyone to continue to improve the article beyond the addition of dates, categories, or template headers, which defeats the point of G13 (lightening the work load on AfC by removing articles that are not being worked on) in the first place.--TKK! bark with me! 01:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)There was a time, DGG, Peridon, before I more or less gave up trying to help AfC out of the mess it's constantly in, when I was deleting up to 100 or so G13s a day. When I came across the occasional draft that I thought had a 50/50 chance of surviving an AfD I either removed the CSD tag, or simply left it for another admin to decide. I did not stop and bring those drafts up to standard - IMO that is the work of WP:ARS and there would be less backlog if AfC rewiewers would bear that in mind. I still don't think very minor manual edits should reset the clock, because we must AGF and be able to assume that admins are doing a correct job of reviewing G13s before they press the delete button. It might be interesting to post the percentage of the 1,000s of G13 that have been refunded on request of the original creators.I think tyhat would be a essential statistic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you overestimate the accuracy of admin work in this area. I'm going to guess that about half the G13 deletions are made without any consideration for whether they are rescuable, or even whether they are in fact good enough for main space. A survey might show more of my evaluations than the merits of somebody else's , but I'm willing to undertake it .IF. someone can give me the technical help of implementing a filter for the deletion log, and devising a way I can look at them without a multi-step undulation and display process. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment 1 I agree with Ronhjones above that there should be an earlier notification, perhaps one month IMO. Easily done by bot (he says, not being able to program one himself). If they come back after this time and don't edit, but reappear after deletion - REFUND will supply restoration on request. Restoration is no problem. Many do seem to get restored. And some end up back at G13 because they haven't been touched after restoration. What G13 does largely is remove the crap that was being left on view. The spam that has been declined as 'reading more like an advertisement' when it's a piece of pure puffery emanating from a PR dept or 'SEO consultancy' that would take a total rewrite to be of any possible use. The very thinly veiled attack on someone. The abandoned draft consisting of 'Joe Bloggs is'. (He probably IS, but so what?) This is the dross that accumulates and needs to be scraped off. If a subject is really notable, someone will write about it. But let's be realistic. AfC and Draft are for helping newbies. I don't work IN those areas myself - but what 'help' IS given other than a review? Do ARS come in? I'm not saying that things can be done for everything to the extent that's going on on my talk page at the moment (I'm sure MelanieN would not object to some constructive help with that one...), but how can anyone help BEFORE review takes place - and how many things are abandoned immediately after review (making 'help' impossible anyway)? Peridon (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 About the abandoned drafts that look possibly viable with nurture. It could be a waste to delete them. It's doing no good just simply keeping them as they are. Incubator seems to be a dead end (correct me if wrong...). Is there some way of tagging these for attention by rescuers? I'd suggest taking the G13 off and entering them in a category for rescue. A rescuer who tries and fails and considers the task totally impossible can remove the thing from the cat and leave a note to say why. Something not even touched by a rescuer in, say, 12 months can be decatted by a relation of the G13 bot and returned to the pool. If they don't want it in that time, no-one's going to do anything with it anywhere. Peridon (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Peridon There is {{AfC postpone G13}} which says that a reviewer thinks there might be hope in this draft and therefore is issuing a stay of G13 eligibility (resetting the clock) for 6 months so that we can see if any users are interested in taking over. Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, but that's just a passive prolongation. What I'm suggesting is a more active way of getting something actually done. From what I see of G13, it's not going to put a great load on the rescuers. Bear in mind that the author has seemingly given up on it, and presumably the rescuers don't know about it. Think about a pile of muck abandoned outside your house by a horse. To most people it's a smelly nuisance. To Mr Jones at No 79 (who grows roses), it's treasure - if he knows it's there... Peridon (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, please - I and other rescuers would like these pages to be made available for improvement and the the creators notified before they are considered worthless and deleted. Last year when another batch of these pages with missing AfC templates was identified, I manually left messages on the talk pages of a number of the creators asking if they still intended to work on them, and at least half of the replies that I received indicated that the users had given up because they didn't know how to submit or resubmit the pages. Invitations to the Teahouse have likely cut down this number, but not to zero. Also, many of the pages have good encyclopedic content, but were never completed. If there are editors willing to fix them up, why delete this good material without letting them have a shot at it first? HERE is a list of just the ones I have been involved with rescuing over the last year - there are many, many more which have been improved by other volunteers. These hundreds of new articles only exist because of the built-in delay-and-notification process for the G13s.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Anne raises another possible issue here - ARE the instructions clear enough? Are they easy to see - and understand? For first-timers, that is. It would seem from what Anne says that they need looking at afresh. If I get a moment (and can work out how to create a Draft...) I'll have a look and experiment with a test bit of nonsense. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    Instructions can usually be improved (for instance, "click her to submit your draft" is clearer that just "submit your draft"), but I was talking about the situation in which the new users had removed the templates, not realizing that they were removing the instructions as well, so it wouldn't matter how clear they had been. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know how filters work, but would it be possible to prevent user's from removing the template by accident (ie a warning when they try to do it and some clear instructions on how to fix it?). Or some more hidden text reminding them not to remove the line? 98.74.160.226 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a solution to a non-problem. Having some drafts around for a while longer does no harm. But making the admins do more work to check more complex rules is a waste of time. Perhaps 5% of AFCsare rescueable, but the point is to build an encyclopedia, and that 5% adds to the encyclopedia. Our aim is not to clear out the garbage as fast as possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Graeme, we obviously don't want to throw the babies out with the bathwater, but in fact not allowing that 95% dross to be given another 6 months lease of life through some totally insignificant edit would actually be reducing the admin workload. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, mildly. I agree with Anne Delong above: trivial bot edits should not count, but the important thing is that the process allows time for the author to be warned in time to do something, if still interested, and for other editors interested in rescue to pick over the heap before deletion. On the particular issue which sparked off this spat, I did delete some of EoRdE6's nominations from Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template before I understood the issue, but I now agree that this was wrong: articles which have slipped through the net without an AfC template should not be immediately deleted. Ideally, those not edited for six months should be plugged into the system at the "first warning to author" stage, but if that is hard to arrange there are not so many of them that it would hurt to start the clock from the time they are first identified, by making an edit that, even if made by a bot, is marked as significant so as to restart the clock for G13 purposes. Generally, I think it would be best if G13 nominations were left to HasteurBot, which does the necessary warnings and notifications, and which I find a more reliable tagger than many humans. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although this is not a big deal. We are not a WP:BURO and admins and other knowledgeable users are already allowed to decide on trivial matters, like whether or not some bot edits should be counted or not for purposes of this or that policy. Deletion discussions are not exact votes either, and their closure not dictated by rigid rules, and admins closing controversial deletions can and routinely do ignore or discount sockpuppets, meatpuppets and tag teaming. Note that hampering G13 deletions migh just shift the workload to MfD's queue, where WP:STALEDRAFTs (=typical G13 dross) are typically deleted after "discussion" by nominator and perhaps one other editor. jni (delete)...just not interested 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Earlier, Hasteur raised the very interesting point that a bot task to raise visibility of pages that were not being looked at [...] because it was not being tracked in the AFC workflow should clearly not be immediately taken from "Nobody's looking at it [...]" to "Send it to G13 [...]". While this is a valid statement, I think it misses the point a bit. G13 doesn't talk about drafts abandoned by the AfC project; it talks about drafts that have been abandoned by their authors. That means that the authors, not a cleanup bot, have not made improvements. As EoRdE6 states in the proposal, A bot adding categories does not make the article any less abandoned. This reasoning seems solid to me. APerson (talk!) 02:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Bot edits should not count in a G13 clock reset. Common sense to me and I still don't know why Hasteur ran his bot to remove the Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template category. JMHamo (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's not the most precise resolution of the immediate problem, nor does it do anything to remove the mess at afc , but it is the simplest way to deal with this particular matter. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - speedy deletion criteria should be bright-line criteria, but if the problem is that there's a bot that makes edits to AfC drafts that appear to be abandoned, thus making them not abandoned per G13 criteria, then G13 can never apply. That's not a good solution to anything. The simplest fix would be to disable the bot, but that tagging is beneficial, so next best is this proposal. Ivanvector (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Ivanvector I can only surmise from your comment that you've either been mislead or missed the point. There are a few issues rattling around: First is that the bright line of 6 months unedited at all which your first line suggests. Second is the fact that the pages that are being argued over were not enrolled as AFC drafts so they were never eligible for G13 to begin with because they were not part of G13. Adding the category to indicate that a human brain should look at these pages to sort them out between MFD/AFC-Draft/AFC-Submission is what the bot's purpose in categorizing the page (and thereby giving at least 6 months for consideration). The refinement to make bot edits not disqualify makes the binary criterion open to subjective calls (which is absolutely against the spirit of CSD). Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I seem to have misunderstood. So your bot is flagging stale drafts which are not AfC submissions, with the intent of drawing attention to them, correct? In that case, as I understand the current criteria, that would make them qualify for G13 only after an additional six months passes, yes? Ivanvector (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: No you were correct. If an article is the the Articles for Creation namespace (Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation these ones are) then they are AfC. As it says in the G13 current guidelines "all drafts in the project talk space" as well as user space and Draft: prefix articles with the banner. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector Despite what other users may believe G13 reads This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. which is where these deletionists are failing to see the connection. Nothing is being hurt by letting these drafts have a 6 month reprieve (after they were noticed) as these aren't being indexed by Search Engines so per WP:NODEADLINE we can afford to be lazy and wait a bit longer. Hasteur (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I can selectively highlight things too. This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. I'm afraid Hasteur is once again misinterpreting his own CSD guideline. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks to you both. I have to agree with Hasteur here, G13 clearly only applies to articles already tagged as AfC submissions, not to untagged articles in Draft: space. I don't think that the criteria is necessarily clear enough about whether or not it applies to Draft: articles that are older but have only been tagged within the last six months. To err on the conservative side I suggest that it doesn't, i.e. if I find an untagged stale draft and put a submission template on it today, it does not qualify for G13 until six months from now. Ivanvector (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break (Clarification of CSD G13)[edit]

  • Oppose - this proposal is moot. See directly above this comment. The full text of the G13 criteria currently reads (without any extraneous highlighting): This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. There is no room for misinterpretation: it is meant only for AfC submissions, defined specifically as articles with page titles that start with "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/" or "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/", as well as other drafts which bear the AfC submission template. From what I can tell HasteurBot only finds articles which are drafts but don't meet these clear G13 criteria, and adds them to a maintenance category so that they can be adopted by the project. Those pages would not qualify for G13 anyway, so HasteurBot's edits don't "reset the counter". HasteurBot starts the counter. So whether minor edits and bot edits count towards the six months' inactivity is irrelevant, and in light of that I suggest that no change to the criteria is best. I'm aware that HasteurBot does other things, but the other things it does don't seem to be the issue here. Ivanvector (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Some editors are probably going to comment below this to say "but we could interpret G13 differently!" but that's not so. With speedy deletion criteria, if there's some condition in which it's not clear whether or not the criteria applies, then it does not. It's not clear whether or not G13 applies to articles that have just been tagged as AfC submissions, so it doesn't apply. Ivanvector (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Ivanvector: I think you may have misunderstood my issue. Hasteurs bot was tagging articles in the Wikipedia Talk: Aricles for Creation namespace which are eligible for G13. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you show me a diff? I looked through HasteurBot's contribs but didn't see it modifying any AfC pages. It was only sending notifications to certain interested users when an AfC page became eligible for G13. Ivanvector (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: this diff or this diff or especially this diff of an absolutely ridiculous submission. Whole list can be found here in his bot history from December 31 onward. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. By the letter of the guideline I have to say that these articles did qualify for G13 deletion, and HasteurBot's edit made it so that they did not qualify. Hasteur, is this the bot's intended behaviour? I think that the last "absolutely ridiculous" one would qualify under one of the other criteria, but I have to think about which. It's not quite G3, A7 or U5, all for silly technical reasons. Ivanvector (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 5 the bot tags those pages that do not have a AFC submission banner with a category for human review to look for several potential causes, to consider if the draft has potential to be accepted from AfC (in which case it should be submitted for review), or if it belongs in the refuse heap. Because the bot's action of bringing it to the attention of humans is a registered action I've always taken the view that makes the page ineligible for G13. To point out the fallacy in the advocate's viewpoint, would editors protest so vigorously if an editor compiled a list of these pages and went in to add the category to every single one of those pages? My guess would be not and in doing so they show their hypocrisy. That the bot's action disqualifies these pages for immediate G13 (and setting a new line in the sand for when it could become eligible for G13) is a happy side benefit. In short CSD are supposed to be unequivocal in regards to their eligibility. If you have doubts as to if it is eligible under G13, look for some other G-series CSD to tap (Promotional, Copyvio, Utterly without context, etc.) or nominate it for the appropriate XfD (which in this case is WP:MFD). Either the community will say no or yes. This back room finessing of something that is not supposed to be finessed is why I have gone to such lengths to protect these potential articles (even if most of them are hopeless) because we are under absolutely no deadline to get these out of the system despite the doom and gloom predictions that the question is predicated on. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm getting a better picture, thanks for taking the time. I can't tell for certain but it looks like the bot is only tagging articles when they have languished more than 6 months. If the bot was recoded to tag untagged articles in the AfC project space as soon as it finds them instead, with no regard to time delay, would that solve the problem? Ivanvector (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: There is a reason this is on the CSD TP, I couldn't care less what his bot does. The question here is whether bot edits reset the 6 months on the G13 criteria. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
They do. Ivanvector (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
And I think that it is a valid question, anyway. If HasteurBot tags supposed draft articles immediately, then they become eligible for G13 in six months, unless someone else goes to work improving them or nominates them for deletion some other way. I'm fine with that. Ivanvector (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I still feel you don't quite understand. These articles are already Drafts, they always have been which is why they are in the AfC namespace. The author accidentally or on purpose removed the AFC banner, but it's still a draft. Now if the original author hasn't edited for 6 months they are elignle for G13. Or will be once we modify G13. I ask you to ignore Hasteur not and our arguments. If a bot, any bot at all, comes along and adds a category, or does simple fixes like that, does that magically make the article unabandoned? IMO, no it doesn't. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do think I get what you're saying, and I appreciate your patience. I don't think that the solution is a simple matter of changing the criteria - the bot should be made to work with the project's goals and if it is not then it should be turned off. Maybe that's a separate discussion. Anne Delong posted a comment above regarding how G13 is supposed to work ([1]) and it seems to me that it is not working as intended. In the spirit of the original G13 proposal (as I interpret from Anne's comments) I do think that bot edits (and only bot edits) should not count towards the six-month "timer", so I will propose that the revised wording should be: Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months, excluding edits by bots. This criterion applies to all pages in WikiProject Articles for creation project space and project talk space, as well as userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. But truthfully, on reflection, I think that G13 should be deprecated - it goes against WP:There is no deadline. These pages should only be deleted if they meet one of the other speedy criteria, or per community consensus at MfD that the subject of the draft has no hope per (the spirit of) WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I realize there's a huge backlog but I think that G13 was a poor solution, or one that has passed its time. I may consider this as a counter-proposal for another time. Ivanvector (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • What started all this was that there was a batch of old submissions which had had their AfC templates removed and so were not picked up by Hasteur's software logic that notified the editors a month or so in advance of the automatic deletion tagging. When they were noticed, many of them were already stale enough to fit G13, yet neither the original editors nor the G13 rescue crew had had the agreed-upon opportunity to decide whether to do anything with them. The proposal about not counting bot edits doesn't address this problem directly, so another discussion will need to be held to decide how to get this notification done. However, it seems to me that there are a lot of pages in the AfC that are technically abandoned, but don't show up on the list because during the six months an editor comes a long, looks at the page, and adds a comment. For example, if I see a page that's eligible for G13, and report it to a Wikiproject to see if it's notable, sometimes an editor from the project will come along and add a comment like "This is a non-notable topic and the page should be deleted". Which, of course, means that then I can't delete it under G13. As I said above, I agree that bot edits should not save AfC pages from being considered abandoned provided that their creators have been appropriately warned. However, and I realize that this would be a separate discussion, there needs to be a way to get rid of very old pages that are being edited by people, but that for one reason or another can never become articles. Wikipedia:There is no deadline means take as long as you like to write an article, not take as long as you like to promote your business, write your opinions, describe your cat, etc. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Anne, I agree with that completely. I do think that any revision we do here should be limited to exempting bot edits specifically. If we start saying "minor" edits are excluded, then G13 becomes a subjective criteria (because what is a "minor" edit is entirely subjective), and that's not what CSD is supposed to be for. On the other side of no deadline, making these pages ineligible for speedy deletion does not exempt them from deletion. If a draft topic is obviously not notable but has been edited recently, it should still be easy to delete through MfD. Ivanvector (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You both raise good points. One thing to mention, WP:There is no deadline is a Wiki essay not a rule or a guideline. Anyone can write one. What if G13 excluded bot edits and minor edits (ie tagged with the minor check box). Then we could involve the makers of the AfC helper script to make comments and cleanup be minor edits? So a reviewing admin would simply have to find how long since the last none bot flagged or minor flagged edit... Possibly. Just maybe EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mojibake redirects[edit]

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, we've had quite a lot of mojibake redirects (here is an example). Do these qualify as patent nonsense (G1)? Some have been deleted as such (like Josi?1/2 Ramos-Horta) while others have gone thru the whole RfD process, and all got deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

While one could wikilawyer over whether they are protected as "poorly translated material", I agree that such redirects should be speedily deleted, being often harder to type than their target. Whether under G1 or a new R criterion, whatever, provided that genuine redirects (such as with diacritics removed) aren't caught in the trap. BethNaught (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the need for speedy deletion. They do not happen very frequently, sometimes mangled transliterations do get use and, as noted, it is not always easy to determine what is mojibake and what is simply uncommon transliterations, etc. There is no harm having them nominated at RfD for a week - they aren't actually harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm mainly talking about obvious mojibake, like Josi?1/2 Ramos-Horta and NIИ, that no human could ever think was a human error. Those examples are obviously not translated at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposal should apply only to unambiguous mojibake. Perhaps it should list examples so the deleting admin knows what counts as unambiguous: ⟨é⟩ → ⟨é⟩ (UTF-8 bytes as Windows-1252), ⟨é⟩ → ⟨\xC3\xA9⟩ (escaped UTF-8 bytes), ⟨é⟩ → ⟨A(c)⟩ (ASCIIfied mojibake). I don’t think G1 applies: if you can understand it, G1 does not apply. It should not be used to delete purposeful mojibake like Ï»¿. Gorobay (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with this proposal. In general that these mojibakes are useless. @Gorobay: you do RfD a good service by bringing them there for discussion, and I agree they should be a candidate for CSD. Most need no discussion, but a few do, so it is fair to bring them to discussion, also fair that it can have a CSD route and that only those in doubt are brought to RfD. Some are doubtful, but I would trust GB's judgment as one of the few who bothers with them, to decide if there is any doubt not to take to CSD but to RfD. This is hardly a mainstream thing, we can't ask others to compete, and I for one think Gorobay has the expert opinion. If nothing else, G's openness by bringing it here, and to RfD in the listings, tends to show it.
  1. May I first propose a simple change in the wording from "unambiguous" to "obvious". I say that as someone who would have to reconstruct it to kana, kanji etc then if successful would have to translate it back to English with a tool, to find it unambiguous. Seems unlikely. Hungarian for roast is ambiguous enough in English (chargrilled, stew, Pörkölt , roasted peanuts) and the other way about; there is no 1-1 correspondence for a simple, literal term like that.
  1. My Japanese is not as good as it once was, which was not great to start with (a long time ago). The idea of transliterating, in mojibake, for an English-reading audience, must be absurd. WP:RFD#D8 "redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created." is the sticking point here, which Thryduulf has argued about, on being "not recently created".
  2. Second and more important the current RfD rules do not admit deletion of an RfD because it is useless. The test is more, is it harmful? Since mojibake is not harmful, I think it fails on that score and the default at RfD is delete, if there are no comments; but a single comment queers the pitch and so it would likely go keep as harmless. (Twinkle and others notwithstanding, it is "Re#irects for Discussion", not "for Deletion".)
    1. have argued at WT:RFD#WP:RFD#DELETE #8 - replace "not be created" with "be deleted" that the wording in that particular section is too strong, since no other section leans on that side for that point, but (as above User:Thryduulf responded essentially to keep the status quo. I see Thryduulf is doing the same again. Much as I respect Thryduulf, we often have battles about a particular R for D because (in my opinion) Thryduulf is more conservative than I, and prefers to see things stay as they are whereas I prefer sometimes to change them. Both are valid views and I hope, certainly from my side I see, we express our views honestly, with intelligence, and with only opinions not for ourselves but the better thing for WP. Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I should add in case of any doubt, sometimes Thryduulf agrees with me at RfD. There is no point scoring there on Thryduulf's part, and certainly not on mine. Si Trew (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of Gorobay's go delete (I think) by a silent majority of regulars at RfD expressing a vote by silence and so going delete by default. But that is no way to solve the problem long-term (and possibly makes Gorobay wonder why to bother; the silence is deliberate but must be frustrating); we do need a positive statement, and "Mojibake is harmful, and obvious mojibake is a candidate for CSD" (I put it deliberately crudely) I assume we are aiming at.

But why is it harmful? Who types it? Do we have any stats on hits through these Rs? Si Trew (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 95% of admins would have no idea what is a "purposeful" redirect and what isn't – Ï»¿ looks just as nonsensical as é to most people. These redirects aren't very common either. Therefore, it is a poor candidate for a speedy deletion criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the comment above the collapse by ThaddeusB. For me, and I imagine for many users (perhaps not most but a high percentage anyway) these redirects that are genuine nonsense (mojibake) are impossible to discern from those that are actual transliterations, which are useful. I think bringing them to RfD is the acceptable solution. There, users who know what they're doing should be able to point out that the title qualifies as a genuine G1 (mojibake = patent nonsense) and propose speedy deletion, or point out that the title is actually valid and allow the discussion to go on. I think we would find that the discussions are either quickly closing under G1, or else being quickly withdrawn as valid titles. For the record, I'm one of the silent majority conscientous abstainees who don't comment on those nominations because I have no idea what is and isn't valid, and wouldn't be helping. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

db-error[edit]

@Bbb23: There wasn't any discussion about this change that got reverted, I did it boldly. I'm willing to request the template be deleted if people here thinks it's harmful. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC) The template in question is {{db-error}}. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it's harmful in any way. You use it when you come across something that was obviously created in error. I think I might've used it a couple times before. VanIsaacWScont 04:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably not, since I made it two days ago. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's not that it's "harmful". It just seems odd to add a new template without discussion. I don't use G6 very often. I'd like to hear from other administrators if any has a view on the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a little hasty, but I can't see any problem with the template. It's covering a situation that can often be tagged by the 'only author' as G7, but sometimes gets a db-reason with an explanation. Sometimes the re°direct may be considered to be of use, or the page (I assume this is where the creator has realised the error and done a copy&paste new version) may become a redirect - but that's the case anyway. I rarely tag G6, but often delete them. I can see this being easy to remember for taggers and useful if added to the excellent Twinkle and the horrible Page Curation thing. Peridon (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
(Irrelevancy) Can anyone tell me how that ° got into redirect in my post above? I didn't have Special Characters selected and hadn't got a ° copied either. Strange... Peridon (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleting pages obviously created in error isn't controversial, it's been explicitedly mentioned on this page for at least a decade. WilyD 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It is useful template; thanks for creating! Now, how about if I propose that we revert this page to version linked to by WilyD in above comment? The rules actually made some sense decade ago, before speedy deletions become excessively bureaucratized. jni (delete)...just not interested 15:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Less bureaucracy[edit]

"Now, how about if I propose that we revert this page to version linked to by WilyD in above comment? The rules actually made some sense decade ago, before speedy deletions become excessively bureaucratized. jni (delete)...just not interested 15:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)"

Not a horrible idea, but that old revision is outdated. I'd say use that general formatting with our current criteria and sectioning, which also means getting rid of that A5/R2/F7 crap. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Most of the junk that's created is one-off stuff that could be handled with additional prodding. Nyttend (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What is this bureaucracy that you speak of, and what lack of sense do you see? I know what the criteria say, and it's not hard at all for anyone to; they make sense just fine. Used to tag under them, deleted about 13,000 pages using them once becoming an admin; there's little red tape involved. Every part of the process has been developed so that we provide fairly tailored transparency without engaging in much need for jumping through hoops (if anything it was more difficult back when these criteria were current: templates weren't tailored and didn't provide the user page warnings in them, we didn't have Twinkle, the deletion dropdown didn't exist or was incomplete, etc.) What's the problem?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get real here. Each of the criteria were established through a consensus driven process. If it is seriously being proposed that the vast majority of them be eliminated, that is not something that can just be decided by regulars on this talk page. It would require a major policy RFC, advertised on WP:CENT and running at least thirty days, and it would almost certainly fail unless specific reasons were laid out why each individual criterion is no longer needed. Unless something like that is being prepared this conversation is just a lot of hot air. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is your sense of humour? Of course my tongue-in-cheek suggestion has as good chance to pass than WP:PRIMO. (note that I didn't create this section, but was merely quoted) We could not survive with some form of A7, for instance, as AfD would be filled with junk that we currently speedy delete. You are right by the way that any major, and also minor, changes need a major policy RFC, WP:CENT, discussion on Meta, WP:BYRO, WP:CABAL, WMF approval, and other heavy processes with endless discussions (with people who typically have only little clue how that area of Wikipedia operates) that take forever to complete. But everyone, please take a look how simple and readable this page was a decade ago! Add a decade's worth of political compromises about the rules and you get the incoherent bunch that we have today. It seems that nothing can stop the instruction creep in Wikipedia. Even the CAT:CSD category has two full pages of mostly useless instructions and boilerplate before one can even scroll down to see what the CSD candidates are. jni (delete)...just not interested 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's true that there is great bureaucracy in changing this page. As well that we see swaths of people who have little understanding of how it works in practice commenting to little end. That's as to the policy page. You've totally lost me as to the rest.

It seem to me you're looking at this from a strange vantage point. When you want to change out your car's blinker light you open the glove box and look at the 90-page manual. It's 90 pages because it needs to cover blinker lights in one discrete logical section that provides all the information you need on that issue, among numerous others. You, the driver, don't read the whole manual, you go to the table of contents look at just what you need and are grateful its 90 pages so it covers your issue. A three page manual would never cover what you need. If it even addressed your issue it would be meager. On the other end though, for the people who create the manual, that process involves many drafts, wrangling over language, scope – much bureaucracy. But the manual is there primarily for the driver, not the people who create the manual. We don't consider the the problems of bureaucracy affecting car manual editorial department when deciding what the manual should say, but what would best serve the driver

Rather than being an "incoherent bunch", I find this page to be mostly a wonder of order and logic that serves its purpose amazingly well considering all the territory and many concerns it needs to address that the prior page did not. From the vantage of a newbie who wants to get in on the administrative side of matters (an aspiring car manual editor), yes, it takes some real time and application to grasp the whole. From the standpoint of everyone else, the tightness we have here translates to a vast decrease in bureaucracy. A person whose page gets deleted understands exactly why. The deletion log, the warning message they get, the speedy template they see – everything points them to one discrete, named, explained section with links to further material if they should choose to explore further. The vagueness and constant need for IAR is gone. The need for sprawling discussion about many deletions are avoided. The remit of deletion review is many times clearer.

Bureaucracy is not found by looking at the length of the page or its complexity as an integrated document. Bureaucracy is red tape to get things done. What red tape do you see from the actual application of the speedy criteria (as opposed to making changes to the policy page), that wouldn't be there or wouldn't be multiplied if we reverted to the 3-page manual?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Bureaucracy is also making hard as all hell to understand what's happening and take action. This page is an impenetrable fog to all but the most experienced users. We could easily cut 50% of the text from this page, make it more new editor friendly, and not dump any criteria. A shrine to the bureaucrat-kings of Byzantium that new editors stare hopelessly at in non-comprehension while the page they worked hard to create is destroyed is not doing us any favours. As noted, the category is likewise borked - and the user information templates are (such as template:nn-warn) are also awful in this regard. "It's just one checkbox on one form" doesn't mean it ain't bureaucratic if it's an eleven hundred page form. WilyD 11:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I do have to agree that CAT:CSD is bloated with material that is not particularly helpful. That's why I don't use it. I navigate directly to [[Category:Speedy deletion]], which is a much simpler interface when reviewing CSD noms. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dropping the numbers[edit]

What about getting rid of the numbers (g2/a10/u3)? This would not at all represent a change in policy, merely a slight change in wording, and it would make speedy deletion more accessible to the frequently new users who encounter it. The change is easy, remove the letter-number combination and keep everything else the same. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons why that change is incredibly difficult rather than easy (e.g. They are linked 100s of thousands of times in thousands of places) but let's put that aside. All I've heard above is that there is bureaucracy and no substance of what it is. Here you say it makes it less accessible and no substance of why, as if it's self evident that it is so. Why would that make it more accessible? What is it about their assignment that makes anything inaccessible? They are the table of contents. "A" stands for article (only applies to articles), "G" stands for general (applies generally), the number tells us where on the list they appear. They order the page and provide the hook for us to refer to them and link directly to the applicable section.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
We can keep the shortcuts and put in anchors, obviously, so none of those old links would break, so that is a non-problem. Every criteria has its own subsection, that appears in the real table of contents, that we can easily link to, and that wouldn't change. We can call it a test page without calling it G2 and there is no problem with doing that in the slightest. None of your claimed problems with getting rid of them actually exist. Yes, the numbers order the page, in the completely arbitrary order that someone put it in 10 years ago, and basically lock us into that order, when it might makes sense to use a different order. For example, the rarely-used office actions would make sense to go last, but the G9 freezes it in its current position. Normally if you change orders the table of contents changes with it, but not when you have hard-coded numbers in the policy itself.
Finally, speedy deletion is often new users first exposure to our processes, and often that first exposure is a deletion log that says "G2". For new users who don't know any of the stuff you mentioned above, it creates the impression of bureaucracy, resembling a government code-book. Whether the bureaucracy is real or not, we are showing new users that it is there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the numbers are actually helpful. Having a number makes it easier to look up the more detailed reason a page was deleted; also, looking at the deletion log, most deletions come with both a written and numbered reason, so the reason for deletion is already accessible without even having to navigate to WP:CSD. I find your "government code book" idea hard to believe: if CSD reasons were referred to like legislation the code would be something like "WP:CSD. s. II, § 1, cl. G2". Two or three letters is not bureaucratic. BethNaught (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The deletion link also gives a summary of the reason. It's rarely a bare G2 or A7. There's a link to the talk page of the deleting admin, so they can (and often do) query why their simple information about a company was deleted (and get the explanation that it was pure PR Dept jargon...). I can't see any problem with the numbers. What is more of a problem is new patrollers (and ones who should know better too...) using the wrong ones. I mean like tagging a perfectly neutrally worded article about a company as spam, when it's just an A7 being a backroom business started last December and only 20 ghits (10 of which are for something else altogether, and the rest Facebook etc pages). If you use the Page Curation names, you'll have 'significance'. But - it only applies to certain things. Not soap powders or green-tailed gulls. Or software. There could be a case for G9 being taken out of the main list as it is not a criterion than anybody is likely to be using - and if they see it they can't reverse it anyway. But it will (I presume - never seen one) carry a summary to the effect of 'Office action - do NOT touch'. It does no harm, as it can't be used by anyone other than the office staff. It's not in my Twinkle. Leave the numbers alone. They work. Peridon (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I am a newbie at CSD:Talk so excuse if I am not following protocol. Seems to me these work. They are jargon, and I can see that they would be confusing to newcomers. But (and I with others are welcoming a WP:NEWBIE into the art of editing) they are useful shorthand. On the other side I can see my usual hangout, WP:RFD, has shortcuts such as WP:RFD#R7 (note the section link), not just a plain WP:G7. So I can see it would be useful to have WP:CSD#G1, or whatever, but not to require people to spell it in full when listing, which is an awful lot of typing, and gains nothing for those in the know, and a little for those not, since they can click through the link to the guideline.
My recommendation is thus make sure you link them to allow people to look up the full text of the guideline. This is in editor space, not reader space. (For my definitions of why these are not WP namespaces, see Template_talk:This_is_a_redirect#Visually_confusing this at RfD). I should do a WP:ESSAY on the distinction, it is not the same as namespaces, but what editors versus readers expect to see. Often one is both and change which hat one wears. Si Trew (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, it would be nonsense to expect for G1 for people to subst as Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Patent_nonsense, and wouldn't even be a decent link since G1 is the anchor and if consensus was to change to say "obvious nonsense" hen the anchor would stay but the longhand link would break, without {{anchor|Patent nonsense}} and notwat which just adds to the WP:BUREAUCRACY, not remove it. Or have I missed the point? Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I am right in that WP:R7 goes not go to WP:RFD#D7 nor WP:RFD#K7. Surprised it doesn't go anywhere, but glad it don't. Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't U5 or something like it apply to draft space?[edit]

It seems to me that drafts like these should fall under U5 (or something like it). Unfortunately as codified it only applies to userspace pages. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hmm... maybe it should be reclassified as G14 ... I see what you mean ... Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
For the benefit of those that can't see it, a version with the name changed is at User:Peridon/sample. (I changed the name to avoid search engine pickup of the original.) (Remind me to delete it when this is finished...) FRF has a point. This is a total no-hoper as an article, but I don't think U5 can be extended outside user space. I would also make a point that some patrollers are misunderstanding U5 by applying it to things that are obviously intended to be articles at some time and not as attempts to use WP as a free host (CVs, rants and fantasy charts). It's the freeloaders U5 is aimed at, not the newbie creating his/her/its first article. (User:BloggsCo posting about BloggsCo has other issues usually...) Making a G14 would open this to all spaces - could this lead to problems? Another objection is that this would be equivalent to applying A7 to drafts (or at least the bio part of A7) and things would be tagged before they had a chance to develop. Sorry for rambling on - typing as I think. What we need to do is tighten up on the taggers using U5 before anything is done here so that they won't tag every bio in sight within a few minutes of the draft appearing if G14 comes in. Peridon (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This would be something like "G14: Draft page with no hope of becoming an encyclopedia article". The danger is that it would be over-enthusiastically applied - draft space is intended for people to flail about and take time to get things right. That danger could be lessened by restricting it to drafts at least a month old; but I'm not convinced this is a widespread enough problem to need a new CSD. At present, if the author gives up, a hopeless draft will get swept up by G13; if they persist in re-submitting without improvement, the page can be sent to MfD. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Peridon, JohnCD: I don't know how widespread this is. I have no idea how many articles there are in the draft namespace that are not submitted to AFC. I don't believe A7 should ever apply to drafts - that's obviously contrary to the spirit of what a draft is (can't tell if the subject is important if the draft is not done, etc). But this to me looks like a perfect test case for a version of U5 that applies outside of userspace. It's something that we definitely do not want, but there's no easy way to remove it. What if the G11 hadn't been applicable in this case? Do we swamp MFD with things like these? I'm not sure if I'm trying to find a problem for my solution, because again I have no idea how widespread this is. But I'm fairly sure that the draft namespace wasn't thought out very well if there isn't a way to tell what's down there. For all we know there could be a half million pieces of crap, or maybe not. But without that AFC or sandbox tag... do we know? Perhaps that's the larger problem. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought about the draft. I read it and I suspect she saved it to the wrong place by mistake, and meant for it to go on her user page. So, rather than deletion, it might have made more sense to move it. As far as a new criteria, it seems rare, but I'm willing to accept evidence otherwise. We don't need speedy deletion for rare events. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty difficult to save to a namespace instead of, say, your userpage (where most of these seem to exist). I'm not sure I agree it was an accident, but I don't think there was an eeevil motive behind it either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this one was a GF attempt at an article. People have the idea that anyone can have a page on Wikipedia - and I've heard that some Indian students have been told that they SHOULD have a page here to help their career. It's probably because of time zones that I see far more of those than American ones. But as to this one belonging on a user page - no. Not unless she was editing other things. Editors like @Rankersbo: seem to spend a lot of time down there - perhaps they can help in telling us what does lurk in the depths. I do think, however, that there'd be a hell of a fight put up by those who never seem to delete anything or tag anything. (They are entitled to their opinions and their say, but I believe that if you've got trouble with a drain that you get better advice from an overall-clad plumber with dirty hands than from a very clean philosopher.) Peridon (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I just busy myself (too much) with tidying to see the bigger picture, marking blank and insustantial pages for G12, G13 or G2. I just had a message about not being sufficiently alarmed by the presese of copyvio, so I think a lot of what you want to know about passes me by. If it doesn't have an AfC template on it, I'm unlikely to touch it.
I do see a lot of pages from schoolkids, which get reported to WP:OVERSIGHT, profiles of students and junior researchers who seem to think this wikipedia is just like linkedin or crunchbase. If there's an AfC template on they get swept up after about 7 months. If not, I don't know what the mechanism is for checking. Rankersbo (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There are probably thousands of user pages that have been created by newly registered accounts who have never returned to make a single edit. The most effective exercise would be to compile a list of those that are older than, say, 12 months and then decide under what category to batch delete them. I'm thinking of something like G14 - abandoned user page by user who has made no edits to any other namespace (a bit like G13, in fact, with a U5 flavour).
For Draft:Kelly Bieksa, which may be either a gf user page in the wrong namespace, or a gf autobio by someon who hasn't read the rules, I dont think there is a current CSD criterion that actually applies, so while it's not a U5, although G11 might just possibly be applicable, MfD might be the solution - it obviously wouldn't survive there, On the other hand, in creating a Draft, Kelly has obviously seen some instructions or advice somewhere and it appears she may have deiberately chosen to igore what she read. One possible immediate solution would be to userfy the Draft to User:Kelly Bieksa (draft), inform her of the move and leave it at that until it gets tagged U5 (anyone not 100% familiar with WP:UP may not be aware that user space drafts are not allowed to linger, unused, indefinitely), or we create the G14 I suggested above, or something like it. As Oiyarbepsy states however: We don't need speedy deletion for rare events. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest something like this as an addendum to G13, which only applies to articles which are tagged with AfC templates. Personally I think that's silly - abandoned is abandoned, and there should be one criteria for it. G13 should at least apply to stale pages in Draft: space. Ivanvector (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ad[edit]

Can I please ask you, whoever is constantly deleting the wikipedia ad, what is your reason of doing so? LeoLi1234 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Such 'advertisement-like' images are appropriate for individual userpages. This is not an individual userpage. Okay? DS (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, that particular ad is advertising WP:SPEEDY, which redirects to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, so ultimately it doesn't add anything. ekips39 01:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The ad wasn't created by the WMF for this page. It was created by User:AzaToth, User:Qxz, and User:Master of Puppets. It was last updated 01:02, September 24, 2008 (UTC). There was never any discussion or consensus to add it to the page though, and it shouldn't be added unless there is such a consensus formed at a discussion here. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll add here that the user is currently blocked for this action. LorTalk 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Even if we did decide to put an ad up I don't think it should be this one since it implies that notability is a speedy deletion criteria when if fact it's not. A7 is the closest we have but that specifically states that it's a lower bar.--65.94.255.73 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)