Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Redirects to itself?

I find it REALLY annoying when an article redirects to itself. Could something be added for that? If there already is something, and I missed it, I'm sorry... Youngril 23:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If an article redirects to itself, without an intervening redirect, the link is bold. If it points to a redirect it's a different issue. There are ways to catch that, but they're not automatic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Circular redirects are already, well, not forbidden but an editorial problem to be fixed immediately when noticed. It should never happen but sometimes gets missed when cleaning up after a merger or other major change to the pages. Rossami (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct. They are certainly not a problem for CSD. Usually the problem can be fixed by redirecting it to the proper target and therefore this is the correct solution. Regards SoWhy 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If page A redirects to page B, and page B redirects to page A, we could delete both under G8 if neither one could reasonably be redirected somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Three new criteria for speedy deletion

I think that this new criterion should be added for speedy deletion, in order to deal with various issues on Wikipedia which result in many articles being PRODded when they should be deleted straight away. Here are the criteria:

G13. Unambiguous support of morally repugnant views.

Any pages which unambiguously:

1. Condone, advertise, or support the views of individuals or organizations who perform crimes against humanity or acts of terrorism,
2. Condone, advertise, or support the performance of crimes against humanity and acts of terrorism themselves, and/or
3. Intend to incite the reader of the page to perform the said actions,

shall fall under this criterion. This criterion is not applicable to pages which cover the topics of terrorism and crimes against humanity in accordance to Wikipedia's policy on writing articles with a neutral point of view. The definitions of "crimes against humanity" shall be according to the definition provided in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal court, which is available in the lead section of this Wikipedia page, and the definition of "terrorism" shall be the one which has been mostly accepted by the international community with some disputes with regard to applicability to nation states, available here.

A11. Words, organizations, and religions which have been clearly been made up in one day.

Articles which discuss obvious neologisms, organizations, or religions, which have clearly been created and have existed for only a short period of time, for which the scope of knowledge of the concept is limited to an extremely small group, and in a fashion which makes it inherently impossible for reliable sources to give significant coverage (e.g. the word "kiurreqhdqq" made up by a small set of students in one fifth-grade classroom), shall fall under this criterion. Any articles which can credibly indicate why the subject of the article is important outside of the context of the extremely small group in which they originated shall not fall under this criterion and are eligible to be nominated for a proposed deletion, or, if criteria for the proposed deletion are not met, a full articles for deletion discussion.

:A12. Articles that state clear logical impossibilities.

Articles whose sole purpose is to advertise logical impossibilities shall fall under this criterion. "Logical impossibility" shall be defined as everything which contradicts established and uncontroversial common knowledge (e.g. "the Earth is round"), obviously false political offices (e.g. the President of Japan), false holdings of actual political offices (e.g. Ui Reqqq is the President of Mexico), false holdings of false political offices (e.g. Bob is the current King of Argentina) The definition expressly excludes religion, for which logical impossibility is extremely subjective and untestable. The domain of applicability for criterion shall specifically exclude all articles which treat logical impossibilities with a neutral point of view.

I believe that these will greatly reduce the load on AfD by eliminating all of the articles which can be caught by this broad net, and use AfD for its original purpose of bringing community scrutiny to more contentious deletion discussions. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 19:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC) e.

And a fourth criterion

:G14. Mislabeled official-status pages.

Pages marked as policies or guidelines when they have no official status and are written with the aim to promote or incite vandalism, breaches of copyright law, misrepresentation the purpose of Wikipedia, divisive behavior on the encyclopedia, or violation of actual policies, may be deleted under this criterion. Bona-fide attempts by users to write policies do not fall under this criterion - the tag on such pages is to be removed and replaced with the more appropriate essay tag.

Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 19:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A11 To the extent not already covered by Criteria A7 or G3 Hoax, Neologisms can be tricky to determine if they are notable, there is no bright line and so aren't a good candidate for a CSD criteria.

A12 Criteria G3 Hoax already adequately covers this.

G14 Criteria G3 Vandalism covers this, a proposed or claimed policy that doesn't rise to the level of clear vandalism should be discussed not summarily deleted.

G13 It seems like the applicability of the criteria would be in the eye of the beholder. It would be an invitation to delete potentially controversial articles. Is this type of article even a common problem? Monty₈₄₅ 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what CSD is about. The policy explicitly is designed in a way so that the criteria are not "broad nets". Anything that needs an admin to make a decision that might replace a discussion at AFD is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. As Monty says, G3 covers both the proposed G14 and A12; A11 was proposed and rejected multiple times, please consult the archives for very very very long discussions as to why that's not a good idea. As for the proposed G13, if they really only serve to disrupt, G3 covers them. But as Monty says, I really doubt those are a common problem and the top of this very page says that new criteria have to be for pages frequently deleted at XFD - to an extent that XFD cannot handle it anymore without the criterion. None of your proposed criteria fit the requirements laid out at the top of the page (G13 fails #1, #2 and #3, A12 and G14 fail #4 and A11 fails #1 and #2). Regards SoWhy 20:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have retracted A12 and G14. However, as for A11, I know that neologisms in and of themselves have been discussed and consensus has not been found to support the issue of that becoming a criterion for speedy deletion, but my criterion is different. It specifically defines a line which a term has to cross (ability to be covered by reliable sources) which does not include the whole category of "neologism" but only a subset. As for G13, "crimes against humanity" are by definition covered in international statutes, and while the international community has not agreed on any set definition for terrorism, a good definition for the purposes of this criterion would be [1]. Both are clear-cut, mostly accepted by the international community, and are hence not a broad net for deleting everything. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 20:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

An admin reviewing a speedy request cannot judge whether something might be covered by reliable sources - that's why we have discussions in the first place. I understand what you intend to cover with that criterion but the wording might encompass any term that the reviewing user simply doesn't know. If the term is clearly made up in a disruptive way, G3 covers it. The rest can be handled by PROD and AFD. Regards SoWhy 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

G13 is redundant to G11. Promotion can extend to POVs, see WP:PROMOTION. →Στc. 20:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose due to risk that these might become broad nets. Also once you start needing to check reliable sources to see whether something should be deleted then you really need to use AFD or prod, not speedy. "Unambiguous support of morally repugnant views." One persons morally repugnant view will be different to another, if we implemented this and then re-staged the image filter debate we would risk having both sides delete user pages setting out the case for the other's position. As it is we already do this sort of deletion for pages advocating paedophilia; If you are hoping to treat other views in a similar way you would really need to be specific as to which views should be unacceptable here. Consider the endless arguments as to who is or isn't a terrorist re various national and religious conflicts I think we need to be very cautious here. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the neologism one, but in practice we shouldn't do this as we've had recent and very contentious neologism deletion debates - speedy is for instances where it should be uncontentious for an admin to delete. ϢereSpielChequers 21:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the definitions. They are now extremely precise and based upon international law or what is almost international law with some debates on applicability. Remember, these are just draft proposals.Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 21:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of AfD discussions, which resulted in article deletion, that would meet your proposed criteria G13? Monty₈₄₅ 21:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

MFDs would also be acceptable as examples of things which would have uncontentiously have been deleted by these extra criteria. However I'd add that these various proposals entail a lot of extra complexity, and the speedy deletion rules are already too long and overly complex. Really we should be aiming to make them simpler, and at a minimum every change that adds a sentence should remove at least as much verbiage. So to add whole paragraphs you would need not just to demonstrate that such uncontentious deletions were indeed uncontentious, but also that they were already common enough to justify adding these clauses, and that there were less frequently used clauses which could be removed in order to make room for them. BTW AFD's role is not just "bringing community scrutiny to more contentious deletion discussions" Originally all deletions went through that sort of process in order to see if there was a consensus for deletion. AFD remains the default process for deleting articles. CSD is just there for some tightly defined types of deletions where the community has come to a consensus that admins can be empowered to delete such articles. That's why it isn't a problem that many AFDs are actually quite uncontentious. ϢereSpielChequers 22:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have found AfDs which fall under G13:

• The Jihad Foundation Organization in Mesopotamia - defended al-Qaeda against the Western press
• Army of God against Jews, Jihad, and Atheists - sounds like a (non-notable) militant group's POV article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs)

The first of those was in 2007, the title was kept as a redirect so that needed an AFD - speedy deletion rarely leaves redirects behind. The second was deleted in 2008 but could have been speedy deleted per G7. How many examples can you find so far this month? We are halfway through April 2012, if you can formulate a clear simple rule that would have enabled several April deletion debates to be pre-empted by a speedy then it might be worth seeing if we can incorporate such a change without making the rules as a whole more complex. But if the only effect would be to speedy one article every few years then it is much better to leave those sort of things for AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 09:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This proposed G13 is unworkable. CSD criteria must be instantly recognizable by any responsible editor reading the page. They must be self-evident and not require detailed prior knowledge. We are not all lawyers who have a deep understanding of any statutes, much less the international definition of a "crime against humanity". Anything requiring this level of detailed knowledge also requires group discussion.
The proposal for A11 fails because as individuals we are remarkably bad at identifying things which "have clearly been made up in one day". A number of articles have been nominated for deletion on that basis and discovered to be legitimate, though obscure. This is the same reason why hoaxes are explicitly not speedy-deletion criteria. The only ones that are sufficiently obvious to qualify for this criterion already qualify for deletion as vandalism. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• These are all way too subjective to be speedy deletion reasons. These are all excellent reasons to give for an AFD, though.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• The proposed G13 is completely unsuitable. Leaving aside the issues of interpretation (it isn't reasonable to expect the reviewing admin to be familiar with international criminal law, for instance) this situation simply doesn't arise frequently enough to warrant a CSD criterion. Even the least frequently used criterion (A5, if anyone's interested) gets over 100 deletions a year. Pages supporting war crimes don't appear at a rate of anything like one a week. A speedy deletion criterion for made-up concepts would get a lot more usage and is frequently proposed, and I would support such a thing in principle, though I don't like the wording of this one. Hut 8.5 11:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting proposed criteria for speedy deletion

G13. Support of terrorism, violence, hatred, and crimes against humanity.

Any page which defends or condones terrorism (defined as "actions specifically designed to induce shock or fear") or crimes against humanity (defined as "systematized and non-tranient commission of violent acts for political aims") on account of racial, ethnic, cultural, tribal, political, and/or religious factors, defends or condones the organizations of individuals who commit these actions, or attempts to incite hatred or violence against a particular racial, ethnic, political, cultural, tribal, or religious group, shall fall under this criterion. Pages covering these actions with a neutral point of view shall be specifically excluded from this criterion.

A11. Words, religions, organizations, or concepts created in an extremely short period of time without hope of coverage by reliable sources.

If an article covers a subject of the title, knowledge of which is limited to an extremely small group in which it originated, and which clearly has no hope of being covered by reliable sources and which gives no indication of importance at all, shall fall under this criterion. If an article can demonstrate credibly the importance of the term, it does not fall under this criterion. No page, even technical or academic terms, falls under this criterion if it can demonstrate importance outside of the extremely small group it originated in or is attested to in reliable sources.

The new definition for G13 covers many, many more articles (at least a few hundred) and very likely even more PRODs. The new A11 definition is more constrained, specifically excludes technical terms, and requires a clear impossibility for a term to be covered by reliable sources; it does not just say "neologism."Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 22:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Even after rewrite, these two proposals fail to satisfy the requirements for a good CSD criterion. The proposal for G13 excludes itself by definition. The correct repair for a page that can be written in a neutral tone is to do just that, not to delete it. (Or, if the title itself is problematic, to redirect the title to a better, more neutral title.) The definitions of things which qualify are less specific and no longer require a law degree to recognize but at the expense of being more subjective. The current wording would result in speedy-deletion nominations for any page that someone thought positively defended the Gulf War, pretty much any page about Israel or Palestine and, well now that I think about it, almost any page on any armed conflict in the world. No matter how clear the situation seems to you or I or how neutrally the page is written, someone will accuse the side they don't like of those sorts of actions. It might be appropriate to delete the article but that does not mean that it should be speedily-deleted.
  A11 still fails for the same reason that "hoaxes" fail - as individual editors, we have a poor track record of making the kind of distinctions required. Too many pages are nominated at AfD for exactly this kind of reason and are discovered during the discussion to be real and significant, though obscure. Rossami (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What of the pages which do now qualify as G1, G12, or A7, but still have political messages? If someone is creating a page which unambiguously supports terrorist organizations, Islamophobic organizations, or the like, and inciting terrorism, hatred, or crimes against humanity, should it have to go through the full AfD process or even be seen for a few days while it is nominated for a PROD?Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If it does not fall under G10 (attack pages), G11 (spam) or G3(vandalism/hoax) and nobody performs an wp:IAR deletion, then such a page would indeed end up at AFD/PROD. However, this would only be a problem if it happened regularly, as somebody said we don't make CSD criteria for situations which arise once or twice a year. How many AFD's/PRODs of such pages can you find dating from 2012? Yoenit (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• why this is completely wrong in both principle and application
  • A11, original version, or in its revised version, "clearly been made up in one day" is too vague a criterion--clearto whom? there are 700 active administrators. The term we use otherwise is unambiguous, nd anything unambiguously of this nature is already deleted as vandalism or test page. Words, phraews, memes, jokes, etc. should not normally be deleted speedy as made-up, because made-up in cases like those tends to mean "I personally have never heard of it" Very few of these ever reach AfD, and they tend to have snow closures, which isn't much of a burden. Of all the things we have to concern ourselves with getting rid of, these are by far the l3east troublesome.
  • G13 no matter how worded is an offense against NPOV. A page about the purposes and goals of a terrorist organisation can both advocate their views, and describe them. All we need do, as for any promotional article, is remove the advertising--and it would be exactly the same as if they were out to advocate the brotherhood of mankind. Too many things have been called terrorist. some countries have a very broad definition of crimes against humanity, which tends to mean crimes against the part of humanity that they consider all reasonable people should affiliate with--which is a clear matter of bias. We already have far too many decisions showing some sort of bias, and a rule like this no matter how worded would encourage to it. Rossami gives a few, and I can think of others. It's the totalitarian definition of free speech--free speech for all except those who would destroy the established society. Articles intended as abusive of defamatory are already well dealt with by speedy, and whether what they abuse is good or bad is irrelevant to their unsuitability for an encyclopedia.
    • Describing terroristic views neutrally is different from supporting those views, which to some extent is already covered by G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). I completely oppose terrorism, but G13 would be too subjective and too open to interpretation. It also says that pages describing terroristic views neutrally are specifically excluded. ChromaNebula (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The real problem at AfD is not those things which clearly need to be deleted. It's the ones that aren't clear. To the extent there's a burden of too many AfDs , it's the ones that are nominated for deletion when they could be improved. To reduce the burden on AfD , require WP:BEFORE--then the stuff that really does have no sources for notability & no hope of improvement or merging will be obvious & easily deleted, and the others won't be nominated. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Reforming AFD by making WP:Before mandatory sounds like a sensible move to me. ϢereSpielChequers 12:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible change to G11 (spam)

I have a thought on revising G11 (spam) to be more objective:

A new article about a company, organization or product that is unsourced or whose only source was written by said organization, company, or product AND that said article provides a link or any form of contact information.

Since anyone using Wikipedia for spam will provide a link or contact information for what they're advertising, this should insulate well-meaning new editors. Consider this an early first zeroth draft. Any thoughts? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of making G11 more objective as currently there is a judgement call between promotional and excessively promotional. There is a problem with the written by bit as we usually don't know. Of course we assume and we may usually be right, but at present it doesn't matter whether the article is written by a company, a subcontractor of that company or indeed a fan. Even if we broadened "written by said organization, company, or product" to "written by said organization, or someone commissioned by said organisation" we'd still be creating a loophole which would allow editors to decline speedies because they were fans not current employees. As for the contact details aspect, it depends on the product sold. A G11 article about a cigarette or chocolate bar would be highly unlikely to contain any contact details as the manufacturer doesn't sell directly to the public. ϢereSpielChequers 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I also like the idea of making that criterion more objective. The second clause, however, would appear to contradict existing practice since the majority of our notable WP:CORP articles since a link to the company's website in the references section is routine. That reference arguably meets your "contact information" rule. I don't have a better idea, though. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding that any negative information about the subject disqualifies the article from this criteria perhaps? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Some samples from the last couple of hours:

• American Unit Multiple non-company sources, article written by experienced editor, might not meet deletion criteria Note: after further thought, this article did not qualify for speedy delete, but is now nominated for deletion D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• AVJ Infotech Obvious spam, includes street address
• Digital Arrow Obvious spam without contact info
• MYTHLOGIC Obvious spam, one sourced provided and that was company website
• Yasir Moize Khan Niazi no contact info, but wasn't spam, was A7

So, this criteria seems like it would stamp out most spam, but some might get missed. The American Unit, in particular had a lot of sources, but a lot of business journals and the like. Adding a business journal as a self-source would make things complicated. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

we will never find a criterion that stamps out 100% of spam, and simultaneously fails to delete promising articles. What I'm,much more concerned with here is the probability that this criterion would remove promising articles. First, as Rosaami indicated, calling something spam because it includes the web site is nonsense, because an article on a business or the like is supposed to include the site if there is one. And as for the street address, though it does not normally go in the article, there is a specific place for it in the infobox. Second, Calling it spam because it does not list third party sources is wrong, in both directions; very often the sources are perfectly obvious and can easily be added, so at the most this would be a reason for prod--and prod is what normally does happen in such cases. The Wikipedia rules for sourcing that seem so obvious to us are not that obvious to outsiders. Even for unsourced BLPs, something potentially much more dangerous to have around, we adopted the rule of sticky prod to provide 10 days for someone to find them--and about half of such do get found in that period. And very often just the company website is enough to indicate the very high likelihood of clear notability for a company. Nor will it remove commercial spam very well--the professional pr writers are very adept at finding ostensible 3rd party sources that nonetheless are not truly independent or substantial. Third, such an article if about a company or whatever that deserves an article can often be fixed--the current criterion includes that the article must be unfixable by normal editing--which includes removal of inappropriate material. The stuff that is G11 spam, is usually such because there is no core of encyclopedic content or that too much rewriting would be needed. Before we adopt any rule of this sort,we should examine it on a sample of not 4 or 5 , but several hundred cases. If we were to have such a rule, it would go much more on the nature of the content than such matters as unreferenced.

I'm as concerned about spam as anyone--I spend most of my time here dealing with it. But I'm also concerned at the variability of our G11 and G7 decisions for organizations. There are too many admins here who don't want to keep an improvable article, because they want in some way to punish the person with COI who did such a bad job of writing it. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is when you get an article about a company that passes A7, but that is so promotional that there would be nothing left once all the promotional language was removed. When every sentence is full of flowery marketing speak, and there is hardly an objective word present, what choice is there? At that point it either needs to be deleted, or written from scratch thereby rewarding the blatant COI POV pusher... Clearly we shouldn't use deletion as a punishment, but its sometimes the only reasonable result. Protecting an article with a single reliable source, but where every sentence is blatant advertising doesn't seem wise. Monty₈₄₅ 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My approach to this depends on the apparent importance of the subject: if the company is important enough, I will stubbify and rewrite. It's really quite easy: one or two sentences is enough for a viable stub, and a stub other than a BLP does not need sources. Extensive rewriting to make a decent article is of course harder--I used to aim at one a day, now I do maybe one a week because of the increased amount of promotionalism that needs dealing with quickly. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of established articles - should there be a time limit?

Lately I've stumbled across a number of articles that have existed on Wikipedia for many years that are suddenly speedy-deleted (in my view, typically inappropriately). For example, see True Religion. I restored this article and deleted two or three peacock sentences, but it has $360 million in annual revenues and stores in 50 countries and is an article that obviously should have been cleaned up instead of deleted. Thinking about this general problem, it seems crazy to me that an article that has been on Wikipedia for seven years is likely to be an appropriate, uncontroversial deletion target. Has a time limit ever been proposed for ad/non-notability/etc categories (as opposed to attack pages and copyright violations, which should be deleted on site) so that there is at least five days' notice through PROD before articles that have been around for years are deleted? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Support as to G11. G11 is by far the most vague deletion criteria, and a time limit on that one would reduce the risk of it getting used inappropriately. Generally I think a better approach is to help educate admins on proper speedy deletion procedure so that they stop making inappropriate deletions. Has anyone left a note on that admin's talk page letting them know of the error and explaining why it was a bad choice for G11? Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, except for U1, G6, G8 and G10. Copyvios can be blanked, with everything else the risk of incorrect deletions outweighs the occasional benefit of finding an old article that genuinely qualifies for speedy. I've caught fellow admins speedying per A7 articles that had survived AFDs before now, so yes I'd agree to this reform. ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of a firm rule. I do not see how these are any different from new articles, for which an equal effort should be made. For G11, Wikipedia is overloaded with promotional articles entered several years ago , when we were not properly looking out for them, that never would be accepted under current standards. Many of them can be rewritten, or at least improved considerably, and I have begun doing it as I come across them, but some of them are as hopeless as some of the new ones . (for the article you restored, you added no third party sources even though they are easily findable in GNews; this is not my idea of a satisfactory rescue.) A7 has a somewhat different problem: our standards of notability have changed in various directions for various types of articles, and something which seems to clearly show no importance may well have sources for them, so an attempt should almost always be made to find sources for notability. For copyvio, the advantages of blanking apply equally to new articles. That admins speed an article that has passed an AfD is a different problem--possibly we should find some of forcing the history to display before the deletion can proceed.

For the more general question of inconsistency between admins, the solution is education in public. We should abandon the rule that we must consult with the deleting admin, thus facilitating restoration when one of the two admins thinks it justified. We should still require notice, because the notices should appear on the talk p. both so the deleting admin can contest it at AfD, or that the message will be communicated visibly. But when it's a persistent practice of an admin, the only good solution is to bring the errors to deletion review, instead of just restoring them, and let us all see them. The reason this is so infrequent is because Del Rev unfortunately has often not overturned speedies on articles that would clearly pass speedy, but equally clearly not pass afd. The standards there can of course be changed the way any practice can be changed, by greater participation; in this case, participation of people who do not speedy deletion on the basis of I don't think its a supportable article at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hashtag ABJproblems

My article is intended to inform people about the Ultimate Scavenger Hunt and help my team gain points, please do not delete my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USHkris9 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Note: I believe this user is talking about Hashtag ABJproblems, THE USH! (Ultimate Scavenger Hunt!), which was speedy deleted under A7 earlier today. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• USH, thanks for joining Wikipedia. Could you please provide some background on the Ultimate Scavenger Hunt you refer to? Since the page was deleted, I obviously can't see it, so it would help to know what the page was about. Also, when you post, please place ~~~~ at the end, which will place your name on your post. Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, since I can see it I looked at it. It's an article about a scavenger hunt at a high school, with absolutely no indication of significance; it is indeed intended to promote participation by the eds.classmates. There is no way in which something like this is a fit subject for an encyclopedia , and it was rightfully deleted. I urge you to contribute more usefully, and I suggest you start by adding sourced material to articles in your field of interest. (And, btw, the place to have asked this is the p. of the deleting admin, User talk:Gogo Dodo, who would no doubt have given you the same advice; I've told him about this disucssion in case he wants to add something. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the criteria for speedy deletion

I would like to propose some changes to the criteria as follows:

1. Merge A9 into A7. The two are very similar, as they both deal with notability issues.
2. Merge U1 into G7. The two are very similar, so why have a separate criterion for userspace?
3. Expand G12 to include any page that could get Wikipedia into legal trouble, including files meeting criteria F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F9 or F11. Those F-criteria deal with copyright and licensing issues, just like G12. Oh, and there's something else the speedy deletion criteria need to cover so Wikipedia isn't on the FBI's Most Wanted list: illegal files. There are some things that are illegal to display (I think you know what I'm talking about) and must go quickly so Wikipedia doesn't get in legal trouble. Illegal files could be covered by G12 too.

And I propose 2 new criteria:

A11: Unencyclopedic articles with no valuable history, including dictionary definitions, how-to articles, essays, things made up one day and others. A11 would not include articles that could become encyclopedic with a reasonable amount of effort. I know this will be controversial, but please think about it before automatically !voting oppose.

G13: Content forks, especially disruptive ones, where there is no reason to keep. A10, T3, F1 and F8 could be merged into G13. Why have four separate criteria when one will do?

I have proposed these changes to help simplify the criteria, avoid getting Wikipedia into legal trouble and save time pointlessly debating unencyclopedic articles that wouldn't stand a chance of surviving AfD. Thank you for reading these proposed changes, and please share your opinion below. I need your opinions. ChromaNebula (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Oppose People would be confused and think all musical recordings can be deleted under that criteria, even if the artist has an article. Rather than simplify A7 it would actually make the criteria much more complex.
2. Weak Support There is an important difference between the criteria, but I suppose these could be merged into one.
3. Ridiculous Nearly all file criteria have a seven day waiting period, while G12 and F9 deletions should be done asap. In addition the uploader would have no idea what the problem is if his file was deleted under G12, so it would cover all possible problems. Adding "illegal" files (which I suppose refers to CP) to G12 is a solution in search of a problem. We deal with such material just through wp:oversight, which is outside the speedy deletion criteria.

And with regards to your proposed criteria, both of them are far too subjective. The first one has been proposed dozens of times, usually in much more restrictive forms and has always failed. Determining whether a content fork is appropriate or not is also not something with should be done with speedy deletion, this almost always requires a discussion. Yoenit (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with Yoenit, with a couple additional comments. The merges reduce the number of criteria, but would make each criteria more complicated, and people already have trouble understanding the specifics of criteria. Second, outside really obvious cases like unambiguous child porn, what is and is not illegal is very much subject to debate, it gets murky very quickly and should either be dealt with via discussion or as an oversight/office action. As regular deletion is not sufficient for child porn, it needs to go to at least oversight anyway. Monty₈₄₅ 19:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is a major difference between A7 and A9. An article about an album cannot be speedied if there is an article about the artist and there is no corresponding caveat in the wording of A7. Similarly there is a major difference between G7 and U1 in that an editor can request the deletion of any page in their userspace even if they didn't write it. If we were to make changes to the criteria in the way you describe it would certainly reduce the number of criteria but since the individual criteria would become far more complex the result wouldn't simplify anything at all. With regard to the proposed new criteria they are both far to subjective for the speedy deletion process. Deciding whether something is or is not illegal is not at all straightforward, and if we need new speedy deletion criteria for legal reasons they should be proposed by the lawyers of the Wikimedia Foundation rather than individual editors. Hut 8.5 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I know that this will make each individual criterion more complicated, but it will also reduce confusion because editors won't have to stop and think "Is this an F5 or an F7 or a G12 or what?" With the simplification, they'll be able to tag and delete articles faster and more easily. ChromaNebula (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy nominations are already done too quickly. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William H. Brackney, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Michael Watson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Warner and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marty Sammon - what these have in common is they were all nominated for speedy delete within 10 minutes of creation and every single one ended in keep. So, no, we don't need to speed up CSD nominations. Forcing people to think will hopefully make some change their minds. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all. The proposer either does not understand, or does not agree with, important aspects of current speedy deletion policies. Describing A7 and A9 as based on notability is a common but conspicuous error. The "simplification" of the schema for file deletion would just make the process more confusing, and entangle files which must be deleted with those that might be usable. The new A11 pretty much covers almost any article that could be AFD'd, and amounts to a license to delete for admins, a proposal that clearly would not gain consensus support. The new G13 would gain nothing, as the four existing criteria would simply be replicated as subcriteria, while the general notion of content forks is particularly unsuitable for the speedy process; such nominations at AFD often result in particularly extended and contentious discussions, and often reflect editorial criteria rather than inclusion criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said. As for merging G7 and U1, see what Hut said above: G7 allows you to request deletion of pages you created, U1 allows you to request deletion of pages in your userspace even if you didn't create them. Regards SoWhy 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose all for the following reasons:

1. A9 and A7 are similar in scope, but they are worded in such a way to make it clear when they are applicable; merging them into a single criterion would make it more convoluted, because A9 has an extra condition on it.
2. U1 applies to nearly all userrspace pages, even if someone else did what may be considered a significant modification.
3. "[A]ny page that could get Wikipedia into legal trouble" is too vague for any user who isn't a lawyer; and keeping all these criteria separate amkes iut clear to someone with no legal background what's going on. Note also that several of the file criteria have a delay built in - they can't be deleted until they've been tagged appropriately for X amount of time.
4. Your proposed A11 looks too vague in my opinion. Deciding what's an article "that could become encyclopedic with a reasonable amount of effort" is too much for a single admin to deicde.
5. Deciding "there is no reason to keep" is too much of a judgement call. Keep these criteria separate, where each one can get the attention it needs - with the specific rules, exceptions, etc.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all. A7/9 is a practical objection, since they work different ways and wouldn't merge well. As someone else said above, U1 is meant to apply to pages in your userspace that other people edited (e.g. an article that was userfied) that you don't want anymore; most U1 cases are also G7, but it would needlessly complicate things if all current U1 candidates had to meet current G7 standards, and the wording of the new criterion would be needlessly complicated if we worded it to include all current G7 candidates and all current U1 candidates. While it often seems that our time-delay file-deletion criteria are needlessly numerous, your proposal really wouldn't help; copyvios really should be deleted faster than images whose uploaders simply forgot to claim authorship. I'm unaware of any current criteria that would currently cover illegal files, but (1) that's quite a rare occurrence, so we likely don't need a criterion, and (2) when a file is patently illegal for us to host, deleting it would definitely "improve or maintain Wikipedia", so we don't need a criterion. Finally, your idea for the completely new criteria is really good, but it couldn't really be implemented; your wording can easily be read in vastly different ways from person to person. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Nyttend, for reading my new criteria and considering them carefully before commenting. Many Wikipedians don't. ChromaNebula (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I appreciate the desire for simplification of rules. However, the shorthand criteria exist not only to explain rules but also to communicate to the administrators who review and act upon speedy-deletion requests. Consolidating multiple criteria reduces their value as communication tools -- and ultimately reduces efficiency. Also, U1 needs to be separate because there are issues with user pages that might lead a page to be handled in a different manner than a "regular" page. Additionally, I oppose G13 as unnecessary duplication of existing criteria. --Orlady (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Retire F8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As shown at this ANI discussion, and by the continued existence of {{keep local}} (with 2500+ transclusions at the time of this writing [2]), the community no longer automatically trusts Wikimedia Commons with "their" images. F8 as it stands is a nest of exceptions and special cases, and deletion at Commons often causes acrimony that could be avoided if the images were also kept locally. Although F8 requires that "the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons," it's obvious that plenty of people feel this is not sufficient, primarily because the people judging what's acceptable for F8 are not the same people who decide whether to delete at Commons, so they won't always reach the same conclusions. And finally, Commons requires images to be "realistically useful", which is supposed to be a superset of "in use by someone," but their actual policy is a bit more complex than that. I submit that, while there may be some benefit to deleting such files, it should not be happening speedily. Rather, such deletions should go through either WP:G7 (author's permission) or FFD. Therefore, I propose that we retire criterion F8. --NYKevin @842, i.e. 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: If that is your concern, I would prefer to just add a "seven days after notification" time limit like some of the other speedy criteria for files. Don't make the assumption that those on FFD are also the same people who decide whether to delete at Commons. Just merely moving them all to FFD might not solve these issues, and would just instead increase the backlog on FFD without any real benefit. Remember, as stated on the top of FFD, and rule # 8 of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions, an image may also be deleted if "no objections to deletion have been raised". Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse User:NYKevin's points all seem quite sound. Warden (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Holy crap no - There aren't even enough editors to maintain the file issues we currently have, and now we should triple the workload? The burden should be on the paranoid uploaders, not the editors who spend hours a day maintaining files. If users are worried about "their" files, they can use the template and watchlist them. F8 doesn't mean that uploader wishes will be ignored. I agree with Zzyzx11 about adding a "CSD after the file has been tagged for 7 days" clause, but this should be the most that is done. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• In case it is not clear already, most images that go through FFD get no discussion whatsoever. FFD is filled every day with images that are deleted without a single comment, for reasons like "orphaned" or whatever. Many of those images should not be on the Wiki, but some should. Unlike an article, nobody will recreate a photo after it is gone. Once it is deleted it is gone forever. Now you want to drown all of those images in a deluge of valid deletions because a few entitled editors can't think past their foil hats? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Add a week wait - won't significantly increase the burden on file workers, but will decrease the possibility of images being deleted when authors don't want them to be. Not all uploaders are aware of {{KeepLocal}}, so unless we want to add a note about it to the upload form, we can't reasonably expect them (especially newer editors) to take all responsibility. The issue of whether we should be moving files to Commons at all and under what circumstances is a larger discussion that will likely need to be had at some point, but not here and now. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• What? - no no no. If users don't trust their images or files to Commons, they can put the template on. F8 is otherwise very clear that the administrator should only delete a file if the licensing is unquestionably OK on Commons. If an admin is deleting images incorrectly (something which happens approximately 0.01% of the time), then the correct avenue is to take it up with that admin - just like every other speedy deletion subsection. It's not like, in the case that there is an error, it can't be undone (again, like every other subsection). To say this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a collosal understatement; this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, then going and senselessly beating on the husk of the body until the baby lies dead. This would defeat the entire purpose of having Commons - to have a repository for free images which all the projects can use together; even the "middle ground" option mentioned above of waiting 7 days would create unnecessary and massive headaches. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also, to point out the issue regarding Commons scope: English Wikipedia treats things the same way; we just don't have it codified. We don't treat users uploading gobs of personal images and not using them for a valid purpose either. If it's out of Commons scope, it certainly is out of English Wikipedia scope and would have been deleted at FFD (in fact, FFD is considerably more liberal in deleting images than Commons is). Again, is it worth gumming up a perfectly good system with all sorts of red tape (the 7 days) or completely axing it altogether (the eliminate F8 option) in order to save a few vacation pictures which would have gotten deleted here anyway? It's hard to even take this proposal seriously. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, but add a delay, a delay makes life for Commons admins a bit easier as they would be able to verify licenses at the source page in case of improper transfer or questionable/dubious sources. --Denniss (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If someone wants to keep a file locally there is a template for it. Otherwise, I do not think we need to discuss at FfD every single instance of a file transfer (for instance, we have file transfer drives every two or three months, and typically several thousands files are moved from here to Commons during every such drive - does anybody really want to discuss all of them at FfD?)--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This would slow down the "move to Commons" process enormously and it would make it very hard to find relevant discussions on the WP:FFD pages since they would be hidden between lots of F8 discussions. I don't see an issue with placing a notice on the uploaders' talk pages. This is already done at Japanese Wikipedia by requiring substitution of ja:Template:コモンズへの移動通知 onto the uploaders' talk pages and could be automated by WP:TW and similar tools. However, people who have uploaded lots of files in the past might not be happy to get hundreds of those notices on their talk pages, and users who want to be noticed about F8 deletions already get a notice on their watchlists about this. A 7-day delay before deletion wouldn't make things more complicated, but I don't really see any need for this. The Soviet claim above is wrong as Soviet files typically are copyrighted in the United States, so the file would also have been deleted if kept locally, unless an appropriate source had been provided. It is the uploader's responsibility to check that the file has an appropriate source, and files without an appropriate source are equally likely to be deleted on Wikipedia as on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, though Zzyzx11's proposed 7-day delay would be fine with me. cmadler (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. In most cases there is no need to carry the same image on both projects. Where there is such a need, it can be marked with a template.  Sandstein  15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If someone has a problem with their image being deleted locally, they can always just contact the deleting administrator have it restored. —howcheng {chat} 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – Saying that the community as a whole is against Commons is very much untrue. Now, before everybody jumps on mine or any other similarly-worded oppose and says that we support pr0n and what other shit is over there, keep in mind that Commons is being used for other good purposes than what most of the "fuck Commons" crowd is trying to highlight and emphasize to everyone. We may be the biggest project under the WMF umbrella, but that doesn't mean that we need to unnecessarily bully the other projects (Meta being the latest one) around for solidarity's sake; we need to work together, and blatant separatism is not the answer (lest we ultimately desire to break off from the WMF completely). --MuZemike 17:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Hell no please don't add more red tape to a difficult process. Let us let commons do what it is good at: working with files. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reasons to forbid deletion of files or introduce a delay. Wikipedia is not a personal photo gallery. Users can use Flickr or another website if they want to have the right to delete or keep files. Why should it be possible to upload photos and demand that we do not delete them or move them as we think fits Wikipedia/Wikimedia best?

What would you say if I introduce a "Do not delete"-template or a "Do not edit"-template and added it on articles and demanded than the article should not be deleted or edited? I bet everyone would say that it is a very bad idea and that authors should not have a veto to prevent Wikipedia from deleting out of scope articles or edit in scope articles. It is anti wiki!

The delay just make the process slower and does not help. Admins should not delete local files unless they are sure that the license and author etc. has been transferred 100 % correct. If we want to give Commons admins a chance to check files they should just have global bit to view deleted files and to undelete to create a correct "original upload log" and to delete the file again. --MGA73 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

+ it is easy to watch the files on Commons. Just add them to your watch list and you will be notified if your files are changed (and therefore also if they are nominated for deletion). --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But for that to work you need to add them to your watchlist on Commons, not here. So if someone rarely edits or logs into Commons, they might not know about changes until it's too late - even if they're active here. Are you really suggesting they should log into Commons, even though they might prefer to work only on Wikipedia, just to make sure their pictures aren't deleted? The "just add it to your watchlist" approach would be viable if a) we had a good system for cross-project watchlists (we don't) and b) we expect everyone who ever uploads a picture to know about things like watchlists and {{keep local}} (newbies don't). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No I suggest you mark "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed" then you get a mail if one of your files are edited. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't solve the newbie problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No but we can help newbies if they ask for help. Question is if we want to find a solution. --MGA73 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - why try to create more work for editors working with files? MGA73 is absolutely correct in the points they make above. Kelly ^hi! 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Even before I saw Magog's comment, my thought was "WHAT?" We already have a big enough backlog of files that should be deleted because they're on Commons; if we repeal the criterion, we're really going to clog up FFD. There is no appropriate way to delete a legitimate and copyright-safe file except through FFD or through speedy deletion. Moreover, the idea of a "keep local" template for articles is irrelevant — {{keep local}} doesn't say anything about quality improvements, and it ONLY is meant to prevent F8 deletions. Find me a blatant copyvio or an attack image tagged with this template, for example, and I'll delete as soon as possible. By the way, Nikkimaria's idea about Commons admins having global viewdeleted rights is impossible — there was an RFC on that idea some time ago, and WMF vetoed the community's support: not because of some crazy policy, but because the developers said that it couldn't be done. Finally, COM:SCOPE isn't supposed to be "in use by someone" — the whole point is that a file be usable for someone. For example, I uploaded File:New Harmony Workingmen's Institute.jpg five months ago and first used it in an article two months ago; it would have been rather awkward and quite inconvenient for it to have been deleted simply because I hadn't started using it yet. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, it was not my idea to give Commons admins global viewdeleted rights, and I think it's completely ridiculous to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I'm sorry for misreading the comment by MGA73. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Pea-brained proposal. And

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

for User:NYKevin for even suggesting such a thing. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 04:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are some, limited, instances where {{keep local}} is useful, i.e. when the images applies to the English Wikipedia only, like when they are status graphs of English Wikipedia WikiProject operations. In cases where the uploader wants to control where the image is uploaded to, tough shit: you gave up that right when you freely licensed it. I also oppose any waiting period; this was in place before and was repealed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse - Commons is a dysfunctional and vindictive little world dominated by a clique of administrators with a frankly non-educational agenda, cloaked in educational phraseology. As a victim of one of these renegades myself, you'd better damned well believe that I'm looking to have my work protected from those jerks. Ditch F8 en route to ditching Commons altogether. Host images at the language projects. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC) BTW Fastily, "Whack" has an altogether different meaning at Commons, y'know...

If the problem is that Commons is dominated by a clique of admins then why not just motivate 20 or 100 en-wiki admins to give a hand on Commons? That would end "the dominance" and make everything all right (asuming that all admins on en-wiki are all good editors that also know about copyright). Commons could need 100 good users to help so it is a win-win. Problem solved! --MGA73 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright, freedom of panorama, image quality and porn are not a very large part of what we consider in RFAs on this project, so our admins are not necessarily best qualified to help on Commons. Plus we have don't have as many admins as we used to and we can't afford to put a significant extra burden on them. ϢereSpielChequers 09:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If one ignores sexually related topics then in my experience Commons works quite uncontentiously, and I rather like the idea that images are shared across all projects rather than reserved for the one they are uploaded on ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reset

Clearly everyone (well not quite everyone) thinks abolishing it is a bad idea. I noticed that several users were up for adding a seven-day delay. For a new discussion, vote seven day delay or keep as is D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose delay. We have delays for the license-in-question criteria because there's the possibility that things could be fixed; e.g. the uploader could add a source to an unsourced image or a link to a permissions statement for a no-permissions image. With these images, there's nothing wrong that could be fixed in that time. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, playing devil's advocate here, perhaps the uploader will come along and tag it with {{keep local}} during that week. --NYKevin @876, i.e. 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We have delays for the other criteria to give uploaders the chance to make their images compliant with policy. A good candidate for F8 deletion is already compliant with policy (images not compliant shouldn't be transferred), and thus there is no need for a delay. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A solution looking for a problem. No point in adding another process. —howcheng {chat} 15:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If someone think there is a problem with some files or admins on Commons we should look on that on Commons and not make things more complicated here. --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A 7-day delay would only mean more bureaucracy with no gain. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose (original proposer) It's obvious that my original proposal has failed. Part of the reason I proposed this is that I feel F8 is too complex. Adding a waiting period certainly won't help that. I'm going to leave the {{rfc}} up for now since I think this secondary proposal has some (very little, but it's been less than a day) chance, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to take it down; I don't mind. --NYKevin @871, i.e. 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If I could offer a suggestion that is beyond the scope of this page but certainly relevant, there are several (I think at least two) bots tagging files for upload to Commons. Perhaps they can be tweaked to only tag files that meet certain criteria. For example, maybe files using {{Information}} and lacking either or both of author and date should not be bot-tagged for transfer to Commons. Likewise, perhaps CommonsHelper could be set to give a warning (which could be overridden) when transferring such files. It's often easier to resolve such issues closer to the source (i.e. still on Wikipedia rather than Commons). Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Fastily has retired, so I wouldn't expect his bot to do any more tagging. The other bot, operated by Sven Manguard, presumably depends on a blacklist in Fbot's userspace, but Fastily deleted all userspace pages before retiring, so that might not work. Anyway, an admin is supposed to check that there are no errors before deleting the file, and any errors like that are probably spotted by the admin. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, now I'm very confused. Fastily commented on my original proposal earlier today (and trouted me for it!), and now (s)he's retired? (Apparently, that really is the case. Sorry!) --NYKevin @102, i.e. 01:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I stated above. To state this quite bluntly: if someone wants to break out their tin-foil hats about how Commons is supposedly hostile to images Wikipedia isn't, that's fine: they can use the template beforehand. But there is no need for us to encourage that behavior by leaving talk page messages and putting in another layer of process creep. Their images will be accessible here as they were beforehand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a Criteria for speedy deletion for multiple uploaded images

File:Scooby-Doo! Music of the Vampire.jpg, for example we need a better criteria then orphaned image as the image is technically not orphaned it's just got multiple resolutions instead of one. So can we make a speedy deletion for multiple images? Thanks! Please oppose or agree.

• Agree it'd make tagging images like that a lot easier. Swifty*^talk 17:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure I understand, isn't that what F1 is for? - filelakeshoe 17:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oh is that the one I need. I swear I had no idea still don't on how that works. LOL! Swifty*^talk 17:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Exclude moves and merges from R3

At the redirects from discussion, there have been quite a few users who have trouble understanding the idea of redirects created by moves and when they were really created. I propose that we therefore modify R3 to explicitly exclude all redirects created by page moves and merges (aside from vandalism, which is covered under blatant vandalism anyway). Comments? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Redirects of that nature that really need to be deleted can go through a non-speedy process. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)