Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DESiegel (talk | contribs) at 18:38, 29 September 2020 (→‎List of discussions: work). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


G6 as applied to draft duplicates and redirects from typo in the draft namespace

Hey folks, could I please get some guidance on WP:CSD#G6 as applied to the draft namespace, specifically with regards to:

  • drafts which are near duplicates of another draft (may or may not have the same author(s)) (example)
  • redirects in the draft namespace which were created as a result of page move to fix a typo in the title (redirect target is either in the draft or article namespace) (example)

I've noticed several editors routinely nominating such pages for deletion. The admin response is all over the place, with some choosing to delete and others choosing to decline. Is it ever appropriate to apply G6 (or any speedy criterion) in any of the above cases? -FASTILY 05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

drafts which are near duplicates of another draft: definitely not a G6. It's better to redirect the less-developed draft to the other one, so that the content remains visible in history so that it can be merged if necessary. SD0001 (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SD0001 wrt duplicates. As for redirects, WP:R3 does apply to draft namespace as well and should be able to handle those redirects that are created from moves of recently created pages. For other redirects, the footnote in R3 does indeed point to G6 for obviously erroneous redirects. The reason R3 excludes other redirects that stem from page moves is to avoid breaking external sites linking to Wikipedia. With most drafts however, that should not be a problem, so that deletions should be okay. Regards SoWhy 06:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the cases of recently created drafts that duplicate the topic of an existing draft, (and I intentionally echo the language of criterion A10), these seem to me to be obvious speedies: why would he draft space be more retentive that the article space? In the case where the drafts have the same author, we see this all the time where a promotional editor appears to be trying to game the system by creating multiple drafts on the same topic, and speedy deletion is the obvious (to me) choice for the "extra" draft (or drafts). But even in the case of multiple creators, the case of redirecting seems weak, since the resulting redirect would then be subject to G6 (via R3's footnote) as an obviously erroneously titled page: why add the extra step instead of simply speedily deleting the extra draft? If editors are uncomfortatble with using G6, I will propose a new category (D10, to parallel A10?) to cover cases of recently created draftspace pages that duplicate the topic of an existing draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By R3's footnote, G6 is only for redirects created as a result of erroneous page moves. I don't see how the resulting redirect in this situation would be G6-eligible. Redirecting it or leaving the page as-is for an eventual G13 deletion are the options we have. SD0001 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification: I think the redirect deletion can be done speedily when a page is moved from an incorrect title. Certainly there was no reason not to speedily delete Draft:Kkk when it was correctly moved to Draft:Government spending and economic growth in the United States. In such cases, the move is not erroneous, it is the original title/resulting redirect that is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion G6's in draftspace should be pretty rare. I think its generally ill advise when there two independent or related draft articles on the same topic due to attribution requirements. Redirects are generally okay but probably best left to die naturally unless a specific need arises or perhaps someone else has moved something to mainspace a while ago. Draftspace should generally self-clean itself after 6/9 months or so or so I thought. Excessive CSD:G6 could be an indicator of someone truing to skew their edit count. Allow G6 which someone has a technical need; and then scutinise for plagiarism and non-attribution. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of G6 is: If any reasonable person would raise an objection that isn't just a mere misunderstanding, it's not a G6. If you anticipate a misunderstanding, consider pre-emptively clarifying things in the deletion log. To use a made-up example, if you are deleting the mis-spelled redirect of Draft:John Smitth to make room for a bio of someone who actually has that name, consider logging it as: "Deleted Draft:John Smitth (now Jon Smitth), to make room for draft bio of John Smitth, a world-champion 18th-century Scrabble player." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fastily: IMO, you made the right call on both examples. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, I oppose G6 applying in this manner. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, the normal response to any such more-or-less duplicate draft should be redirection not deletion, whether by speedy or by MfD. I routinely opt for "keep but redirect" at MfD for such drafts, and would probably decline a G6 for such cases. There are several reasons for this:
    1. If the draft was created in good faith, the redirect lets the editor who created it know where the content is and where any new work should be done in an easy and natural way, harder to get wrong than needing to read and understand a deletion log entry.
    2. If the draft was created in an attempt to game the system, the redirect leaves it obvious to anyone checking the record of the user what happened, while a log entry might more easily be missed.
    3. If the two drafts are on the aME TOPIC BUT ARE NOT IDENTICAL, A redieect leaves the content available in the history, where it can be merged into the remaining draft.
    4. R3 applies only to "typos" or in general errors of naming. "John Smith (Printer)"is not an error for "John Smith (Publisher)", particularly if the subject was both. "Jane Roe (Singing)" is not an error for "Jane Roe (musician)".
    5. G6 should not be needed unless such a redir is obstructing a move, or perhaps if an editor is tendentiously reverting the redir to a competing draft without discussion. And then I think an MfD would be better than a G6, or perhaps protection of the redir.
    6. A redir can be created by any user, there is no need to involve an admin. It is more transparent. It has no real downside.
    7. Redirection is out standard response to separate pages on teh same topic.
    In short I see no value in speedy deletion for such cases, and significant downsides. Indeed I might be tempted to bring such a deletion to DRV. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose G6 creep. G6 should not cover unimportant unnecessary deletions like draft duplicates. There is no need to delete, WP:ATD-R applies. Knee jerk deletions are likely to confuse newcomers when they can't find their contribution history, and there is zero explained benefit. Duplicates should be fixed by redirection as a normal edit. If more is required, write a better edit summary. More generally, G6 should not apply to anything with a non-trivial edit history. Does it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • SmokeyJoe G6 should not apply to anything with a non-trivial edit history. Does it? Yes. If an article is merged into another, and a redirect is left that has a non-trivial edit history, and a new draft of an article that properly belongs at that name is created and approved, a G6 will be needed to clear the name for the draft to move to mainspace. But clearing the way for proper page moves is the only case I can think of where G6 should apply to a page with a non-trivial edit history. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that's right. G6 for page moves is used for deleting recently auto-made trailing redirects, and temporary third pages for title swaps. If the redirect has a non-trivial page history, it should be moved to a disambiguated title and redirected, not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally think that admins should have a fairly strong mop when it comes to deleting cross-namespace redirects that are likely to be of questionable utility and are potentially of negative utility. We don't have a PROD for redirects, so what is the alternative? Sinking time at RfD, perhaps MFD? BD2412 T 04:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only cross-namespace redirs which there is general consensus should not exist are ones out of the main article space to somewhere else, I think. Any other sort would need a deletion discussion IMO, unl;ess they clearly fit one of the other CSDs which would not normally be the case. G6 is not "I think it is unbhelpful". Obtaining consensus where there is no pre-existing consensus is not a waste of time IMO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DES and Smokeyjoe. This fails the uncontestable requirement that almost pages that could be deleted using it should be. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these will be eventually G13/G8-deleted (like many other drafts), or can be deleted after mainspacing the draft. Speeding up these deletions seems busywork without much benefit. —Kusma (t·c) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:RDRAFT redirects should not normally be deleted when moving a draft article to the main namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R3 and malformed parenthetical qualifiers

Is R3 intended to cover cases where a parenthetical disambiguation qualifier is missing its closing parenthesis? If so, is the (vague) recency requirement waived as long as the redirect has no incoming links? Otherwise, has the vagueness already been discussed somewhere?

I have a specific example at hand, but to avoid any appearance of impropriety (i.e., an end run around the normal deletion process) I won't mention it here. I did verify that no move is involved. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Practical question: How can you be sure that it has no incoming external links? Regards SoWhy 18:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that such external links are frequently generated by various forum software that doesn't recognize certain punctuation as being a normal part of an URL, but I didn't think that was relevant - where the problem really is just an omission of a closing parenthesis, the reader should be able to fix it manually. I admit this was sloppy logic, and I am willing to drop the issue, even though there are some parts of my original question(s) that this doesn't cover. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC) (+ 21:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I am not clkear. If this isn't a redir from a move, how did it occur if that is known? Is this Example (type points to Example (type)? Or Example (type points to Example (kind)? Or Example (type points to Example? Or what? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first one - the specific redirect I had in mind is Punch-Out!! (NES, for which it is trivial to check Special:WhatLinksHere and Special:Log to verify that it has no incoming wikilinks and is not a move. I eventually decided against nominating it for deletion, precisely due to the concern of external links as I described above. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC) (+ 23:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
SoledadKabocha, if such a redirect gets brought up to WP:RFD, then barring exceptional circumstances it will almost certainly result in unanimous deletion (examples: 1, 2, 3). R3 wouldn't apply unless the redirect was recently created, and I'm not aware of any exceptions to this recency requirement. – Uanfala (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a bright-line quantitative rule for R3's recency requirement, or does it require checking other things such as the creating user's contributions in combination with common sense? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Clarification for G5

I want to ask what is the minimum limit for the substantial edits criteria, because a bad faith editor can add some minor edits, so it does not meet G5. e.g: A banned editor A created a page, and another B added a null edit by appending <!----> to the end. Should this page still meet G5? This RfC is for reaching consensus or uniamity about this problem. -- PythonSwarm Talk | Contribs | Global 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless I'm mistaken, substantial edits means additions of content or changes in content. More than copy editing, minor edits, and application of maintenance tags, etc.. A null edit as described is certainly not substantial. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A substantial edit is a bit vague, but how would one draw a line? I would expect it to at least visibly change the content of the article, but a large removal of content could be a substantial edit, as could a large addition, but how large? Adding a reference? If it contributes to verifiability, generally yes, if it establishes general notability, yes, if it merely duplicates a dubious source, no. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have always applied it as 'no addition of content', excluding typo fixing, categorisations, fact-tagging, bot-edits, addition of maintenance templates, infobox inclusions (where all info is taken from the article), moving parts around (copy-edit), spelling/grammar corrections, wikilinking, disambiguations, additions of 'short description', stub-tagging, and format fixes(, etc. etc). I really expect that there is at least a good part of a sentence of new facts being added (so I still regard something like 'she was born in Moscow' to 'she was born in Moscow, Russia' as non-substantial). In case I doubt I will tag only and have a second pair of eyes on it. Note that I have deleted pages that have sometimes up to 10-15 'maintenance' edits after the creation by the sock under G5, as there were no edits that actually changed content. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't have to be an RFC; there's no dispute here. The idea that some admin somewhere would decline a G5 because someone added an html comment is facetious. —Cryptic 13:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Cryptic's comment: PythonSwarm, can you point to a specific time you believe G5 was applied incorrectly that this RfC would address? Otherwise, this is just hypothesizing about a situation that I don't think exists. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: I asked PythonSwarm this very question, but at the time of this writing, have not received an answer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability and Deepfriedokra: For example the Template:Technical Non redirect page, it has been edited by people while changing content, but nominated for G5 after, although this should be nominated for redundancy and G3. Plus, CSD should not contain anything vague. I was sleeping while you guys asked this question. sry. -- PythonSwarm Talk | Contribs | Global 23:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Technical non-redirect has not been deleted. It has no substantial edits. It was tagged for WP:MFD and WP:G5, and then test and WP:G3 tags were added by OP. Those two were removed by Pppery --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking at that template specifically, there were zero substantial edits made after the creator saved the page. A TFD and three different people warring over which CSD tags to use do not negate a G5 nomination. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, if WP:G5 were incorrectly applied, it would be addressable by contacting deleting admin and then WP:DRV --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has this gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC? I can't find any evidence that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been tried, let alone exhausted. That aside, "substantial" is subjective, we cannot define a "minimum limit". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that a "substantial" change must involve some displayed semantic change in content. A mere change in form (copyediting, and the other things mentioned by Beetstra above) would not be substantial, much less a cosmetic change that has no effect on the rendered article would not be substantial. However, a talk-page not or even an HTML comment to the effect 'I take full responsibility for this article" by an editor in good standing who is not a puppet of the sock should probably stop a G5. I agree with those who question why this went right to a formal RfC. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified that page-authors can remove their own speedy tags - common sense applies

Changed

The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so.

to

The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it unless he placed it there himself. Otherwise, only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so..

This is just clarifying some common-sense situations that the previous text seemed to prohibit, namely, editors reverting db- tags they mistakenly placed on pages they authored and editors changing their minds after placing a db-author or db-user tag on a page they created.

If anyone objects, feel free to revert and ping me to discuss. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the intent, but I have reworded it to avoid the needlessly gendered language. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is silly. Obviously someone is not going to think it refers to reverting their own mistaken tag. Natureium (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: I appreciate your point. You've swayed me a little. I'm still in favor of the change, but not as strongly as before. Survey for seasoned administrators: Has this ever been an issue? If not, perhaps this change can be held back until/unless it becomes one, provided there is a general, not necessarily written-down, understanding among administrators that editors can, in fact, remove speedy deletion templates they have placed on pages, even if it was on a page they created. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the understanding certainly is there for some less obvious cases where creators can remove speedy tags. There was a discussion from a few months ago, and I was thinking of implementing the draft text I proposed there, with the obvious additions of anything that gets decided here. – Uanfala (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not greatly concerned either way, but not all of our editors are equally endowed with common sense. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the paragraph with the version discussed earlier this year [1]. I couldn't bring myself to re-introduce the bit about creators removing tags they've placed in error, but if anyone wishes to see this text back (davidwr, Pbsouthwood?) they're free to insert it: I certainly don't see consensus against it. – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New section - Modules

Since it takes some extra work to ask that a module be speedy-deleted, I drafted a new section called "Modules" then self-reverted. Here is the proposed change. Here is the comment by Primefac on WT:Lua which prompted the change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modules fall under WP:TFD (as far as XFDs go) and by that logic Modules also fall under the Template CSD criteria (which I believe at the moment is only WP:T3). Primefac (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: from memory, applying T3 to modules was discussed and rejected previously although I can't remember why. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first four discussions I found (Archive 51, Archive 70, Archive 72, Archive 73) mostly seem to be concerned about whether it's worth folding them in. In 2019 two discussions basically concluded that Modules were just fancy Templates and could (in theory) be tagged with T3, but since it's a seven-day hold on deletions they might as well go to TFD. In other words, "you can do it but why bother?" Primefac (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No immediate objections to that, but the comment makes me wonder whether the U set of criteria should also apply to modules in the Module:Sandbox/your userid/ hierarchy since (from my limited understanding) that's treated as a user sandbox space? While a U3 eligible page would be pretty unlikely (if even technically possible) there, U1, U2 and U5 are not implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pertinent statement is more about putting the nomination on the documentation subpage; at the moment U, G, and T all qualify for use, which is pretty much all of the relevant criteria (since obviously A/R/F/C/P are namespace-specific). Primefac (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I agree that the "U" criteria could apply to the Module:Sandbox/your userid/ hierarchy with the caveat that the page should not have any significant history of being outside that user's sandbox area. Otherwise, I could take any arbitrary module, move it to my "user sandbox", change the content so it looks like it's not worth keeping, and tag it for speedy deletion. For that matter, ALL module speedy-deletions should have their "move history" and "edit history" checked to make sure the requesting editor isn't trying to "game" the system. Note that normal editors can move modules without leaving a redirect so tracking the move history may take some extra effort. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But as you state in your penultimate statement, that has nothing to do with the page or the criteria but with the deleting admin actually checking the history. It's the same as when someone moves a page to a new name and then puts it up for "G7". No, you cannot do that and say it's "your page", you moved it and therefore (unless it's an R-eligible move) the redirect needs to stay. I've seen just about every CSD criteria manhandled at some point or another, but that doesn't invalidate its potential usage. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of writing in prose whether you want just the module itself, just the doc page, or both to be deleted, why not recommend using <includeonly> or <noinclude> so that the template and categorization only happen on the page where you want them to? Also, template editors have the option of changing the page's content model and then applying a CSD tag like on any other wikitext page. Do you think that's worth mentioning too? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about this some more, I think I have an even better idea, that will allow CSD tagging straight from modules, without needing to change their content model (it will leverage Module:Documentation). I'll try to code that up tonight or tomorrow. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: If it's practical, can you make this work on .css, .js, and other "code" pages in user-space? If I want to delete the page history of my .css page, there's no easy way to slap a speedy-deletion template on it right now. For that matter, it would be nice if .css and .js pages had a "doc" option so I could write documentation if I'm going to share the script with others or encourage others to import it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I vaguely recall deleting a .css or something similar that had the {{db-userreq}} commented out, but it still "transcluded" (or at least, showed up in the category). That was a few years ago though, so they might have changed how those page classes handle the code. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Templates on CSS/JS pages do populate the categories, but don't have any visual appearance on the script page of course. For sanitized-css (the contentmodel used for TemplateStyles), the template will need to be commented out (otherwise the page can't be saved due to the resulting syntax error). JSON is the only content model which currently is impossible to tag, because once again the page can't be saved with a tag due to the syntax error and unlike sanitized-css, no forms of comments are allowed in JSON, and unlike modules there are no documentation pages also.
For the record, Twinkle can be used for CSD tagging modules (it will put the tag on the /doc page) and for CSS/JS pages (but not for sanitized-css or json pages). – SD0001 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JSON does allow comments, if you disguise them as data within an object - see for instance Wikipedia:Geonotice/list.json where the UK20200809 object includes a name/value pair named "comments", which is ignored by the bot that processes the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Yes, but they don't get parsed as wikitext, so can't be used to add categories. For example, Category:X1 does not list User:Jackmcbarn/sandbox.json as a member. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My solution for tagging modules without needing to mess with their doc page or content model is now live. You can see a demo at Module:Sandbox/Jackmcbarn/csd. I also submitted https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/pull/1121 that will make Twinkle start doing this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really a good idea? It appears to me to make the process more complicated, in addition to having the unintended consequences of causing every page in module namespace to transclude itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Don't most pages these days transclude themselves for one reason or another? And for modules in particular, most of them will anyway because their doc page will contain an example of their usage. And as for complexity, is that a big deal given that most CSD's are done with Twinkle? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most article pages transclude themselves via Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. Most non-article pages don't transclude themselves. Either way, this change still appears to lack a purpose. most CSD's are done with Twinkle is irrelevant, since this change means nothing for CSDs done with Twinkle. For CSDs not done with Twinkle, modules need to be treated differently regardless, and I think using Module:Module wikitext is actually more confusing than adding the deletion tag to the doc page.
The only actual problem presented with adding the deletion tag to the doc page is that some admins are careless, which should not be worked around by the addition of more module creep. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: How is this any worse than putting the tag on a different page though? Either way, it's a nonstandard way of doing speedy deletion. (By the way, I like your clever usage of package.loaded in it.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really much worse, but it's not really any better either, and this it is not worth the increase in complexity of Module:Documentation in my opinion, especially since the code you added has nothing to do with documentation. As I said above, there was no actual problem with putting CSD tags on the doc page, other than admins occasionally acting carelessly. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Great work! – SD0001 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a conversation for a different place, Jackmcbarn, but I wonder how receptive WP:TFD would be to this as a potential nominating process. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: Part of me wants to just WP:BOLDly do it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd revert. There's absolutely no problem with the current system of nominating modules for deletion, and this no need for any of this. (and I'm responsible for a large fraction of module nominations at TfD) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)."

WP:G14 mentions "or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).". Set index articles and lists are Wikipedia articles, and serve as much disambiguation-like function as any other Wikipedia article with wikilinks. They are intentionally not disambiguation-like navigation pages, because the consensus was to add encyclopedic content to them. List articles are valid link targets, and "(disambiguation)" redirects to them should be speedy-able. If editors need links to indicate that the list is intended, the set index article should be moved to the usual "List of " titling, or some correct redirect like "X (list)" or "X (set index article)" should be used instead. I propose striking that phrase from the criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The context is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Tphoon Mujigae (disambiguation). The page now at List of storms named Mujigae is very similar to a disambiguation page in that it lists all items with the same name. Storm pages are categorized as a "set index article" in Wikipedia, but that's just a technical phrase that non-dab editors aren't aware of that allows these disambiguation-like pages to have a bit more information (such as when the storm name was retired in this case). In cases where we expect there to be a disambiguation, like this one, a "FOO (disambiguation)" redirect is able to point searchers who may be looking for such a page to the correct location. It also has the advantage of preventing a duplicate disambiguation from being created if for some reason, an editor cannot find that page. In the case before us, Typhoon Mujigae (disambiguation) was the name of the page for several years, so the redirect is also a {{R from move}}, which is useful to prevent linkrot, etc. I disagree with the claim that they serve as much disambiguation-like function as any other Wikipedia article with wikilinks. There are cases, such as the one above, where the index or list is clearly disambiguation-like and there are articles where the content is clearly not serving as a tool to distinguish multiple things with the same name. However, where there may be gray area, I think it is best to have it addressed at RfD so I would not be in favor of having this exception removed. -- Tavix (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tavix. The line between what is a disambiguation page and what is a set index or a list is one that is entirely arbitrary and completely unknown to most editors, let alone the majority of our readers. Indeed set indexes as a concept independent from disambiguation pages only exist as a compromise between those editors interested in serving the best interests of readers and those editors interested in rigidly enforcing style guidelines about what can appear on disambiguation pages. If someone is searching for "Foo (disambiguation)" they want to be taken to a page that lists encyclopaedic topics that could reasonably be titled "Foo", reasonably be referred to as "Foo" and/or reasonably be found on a list of "Foo", in >99% of cases they don't care whether they arrive at a disambiguation page, a set index or a list, as long as the page they arrive at lists the things they are looking for (it could be they are looking for the list of things, or it could be that they are looking for a specific thing that is unlikely to be the primary topic but they don't know the article title for). This all means that the majority of redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" pointing to set indexes or lists should not be deleted, let alone speedily deleted and so I very strongly oppose removing the exemption from G14. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree too, and would suggest that they be styled like navigation pages instead of articles, but I'm in the minority there. On Wikipedia, they're lists with encyclopedic content, and the arbitrariness of the line would be rendered moot by the use of redirects that match the target. If SIAs somehow "need" a redirect that indicates that the incoming wikilink is intentional (even though they are valid wikilink targets, just like any other article), then the "X (set index article)" or "X (list)" wording would solve that. Or they can be better titled as "List of Xs named Y" rather than "Y (X)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that distinguishing intentional links isn't the only reason these redirects have value - people also navigate directly to them in (at least) the two scenarios I outlined previously: People wanting a list of things with the name, and people wanting to read about something which is not (or they think might not be) the primary topic but which they don't know the title used. This means that even if the target is renamed "X (set index article)", "X (list)" or "List of Xs named Y" people will continue to use the "X (disambiguation)" title to look for it and so the redirect will still be needed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

de-PRODded pages still eligible for CSD?

Can CSD still apply to pages whose PRODs were contested? Id est are previously PRODded (or de-PRODded) pages still eligible for CSD? I initially thought about discussing {{dfu}} as opposed to File PROD. However, reading both policies, neither CSD nor PROD seems to address implementing CSD on de-PRODded pages. For instance, an orphaned non-free file is PRODded but then de-PRODded, but then the B-bot automatically tags the file as "orphaned" to be deleted for more than seven days. If the "orphaned" tag is uncontested, either the "PROD only one" is weakly enforceable, or there may be a loophole between CSD and PROD. In another case, what can an admin do to a de-PRODded file currently tagged with "dfu"? Not only files, I have wondered also whether de-PRODded articles are still eligible for CSD. --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a PROD precludes a CSD, but usually if an editor feels one of the CSD criteria apply, they would have used it instead of a PROD(as well as a reviewing admin). 331dot (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would depend on the criterion, but generally yes. Copyvios, for example. G5 too, especially if the creator was a sock of a banned user that was detected only after the deprod. Reyk YO! 09:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All right. What about WP:F7 (including dfu), WP:F5, and WP:F11? George Ho (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly an expert on files, but I would say all of those are still valid even after a deprod. My general feeling is that, because PRODs can be removed for bad reasons or no reason at all, a deprod can't be used to veto a legitimate reason for deletion. This include speedies. Reyk YO! 09:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't any criterion using the seven-day deletion period (like "dfu" and "orphaned non-free") conflict with PROD if de-PRODded files are still eligible for those criteria? Is this conflict (or some sort of loophole?) something to worry about? George Ho (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I returned from my hiatus, I declined a couple of speedies that had been ProDed based on the assumption that they needed AfD and sent them to AfD where the consensus was that I was an idiotwrong. I've seen no policy or guideline anywhere that says I was right in thinking ProD precludes CSD if CSD is applicable on it's own merits. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many possible scenarios that it's difficult to see how a set of explicit rules can be codified. On one end of the spectrum there are copyright violations that should obviously get deleted regardless of previous prods, and on the other – speedies using "weak" criteria (like A7 or G6) when the previous deprod was well explained. As a general principle, I would think that "quick" processes that receive little scrutiny should not normally be able to override "deeper" ones that have engaged the community at a larger scale (as prods do). But in most cases, why should we resort to speedy deletion in the first place? If there are concerns that the de-prod was iffy, then just prod the page again: it's better to break the minor technical rule against repeat prodding, than to work in a way that technically isn't prohibited but that goes against the general principles of the project. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must strongly disagree with Uanfala's comment just above. if an editor re-prods a page previously deprodded, the sec ond PROD should be summarily and promptly removed, and in any case a reviewing admin should not delete under it. If the editor placing she second prod knew that there had been a previous deprod, that might be grounds to sanction the editor, perhaps a TBAN on placing prods. That would be a matter for ANI. A deprod would not in general block a proper CSD, as several editors have said above. When the issue is much the same, say a prod concern was "not notable" and the deproder gives good reasons why the topic is probably notable, an A7 would probably not be appropriate, as speedy deletions should normally be uncontroversial, and in that case an A7 would clearly not be. A similar conflict might occur between a deprod and an G11 (spam), a well reasonewd prod mightr be evidenc thqt the CSD is not uncontroversial. in any case if a deprod is "iffy" the normal next step is AfD, not CSD or re-prod. And so it should be. Where there is a dispute we need a community discussion leading to a consensus, not a speedy action. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errmmm.. so you're suggesting that it's OK for a previously deprodded article to be summarily deleted per G15 or whatever, but that an editor who instead opts for the wider-participation one-week-long process should be dragged to ANI and sanctioned? – Uanfala (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The point about PROD is that it's for uncontroversial deletion. Once an article has been de-PRODded, it's clearly no longer uncontroversial, so a re-PROD cannot take place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, CSD is even more so for deletions that are uncontroversial. I was just trying to point out the apparent absurdity of insisting that a "higher" process (PROD) that has proven too controversial for a given case to be applied again can be overridden by a "lower" process (CSD). Formalities aside, this is akin to insisting that articles that have survived AfD shoudln't be nominated for AfD again, but can instead be prodded. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in practice, despite what they said, I don't think anyone is likely to actually be sanctioned for a single bad PROD, only if they continue to do it repeatedly after being reminded that it's against policy. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that a prod has no interaction with CSDs whatsoever. An article that is eligible for a CSD that was put up for prod was almost certainly done so by accident (because the editor did not realized they qualified - obviously, if you know an article falls under a CSD, that's a faster and more reliable way to get it deleted.) And the deprod absolutely does not invalidate any CSDs - someone above said that it received more scrutiny; I strenuously disagree. Deprodding can be done by anyone and does not at all imply that they know or checked for the CSD criteria. In subjective edge cases an admin considering whether to delete a CSD-tagged article that had previously been deprodded might take the deprod into consideration, but for everything other than the prod process itself, a deprod carries no formal weight. The only exception might be when the prod mentioned a rationale that actually fell under CSD, and the deprodding editor specifically disagreed with it (eg. edit summaries of "prod, Hoax" -> "deprod, I don't think this is a hoax" (from someone other than the creator) -> "CSD G3, this is a blatant hoax" might be dubious because the disagreement of an uninvolved), but even then it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. And who deprodded matters - while the creator of an article can deprod it for any reason, their opinion that they are not committing vandalism or adding hoaxes obviously carries no weight for WP:MANDY reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A de-prodded article should not be tagged {{db-a7}}, take it to AfD instead with a link to the deprod. A later discovered G5 or G12 CSD eligibility should not be hindered by a prior PROD and dePROD over notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, a dePRODded file should be taken to FFD, not tagged with {{dfu}}, right? George Ho (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What does {{dfu}}, Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale have to do with speedy deletion? Doesn't {{dfu}} prompt others to add to the rationale? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of WP:CSD F7 (line d). Has anyone else notice it? George Ho (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#F7#d appears to be a file deletion equivalent of PROD, but with no prior de-PROD caveats. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can T3 deletions be refunded?

Can deletions per WP:T3 be undeleted via WP:REFUND? Or must they go via WP:DRV? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First step (regardless of REFUND or DRV) is always to contact the deleting admin. Personally I see nothing to indicate that a REFUND back to the template space is appropriate, but REFUND can also be used for userfication which would be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, I see. On a tangential note, I notice that a closer can treat TfDs with no participation for 7+ days as "PRODs" / soft deletions, where they can be REFUNDed (usually I've seen refunds go back into template space). Wouldn't it make sense to have the soft deletion closes (where rationale was it being a duplicate / otherwise within T3 scope) match up with the T3 undeletion process, so going through one route doesn't end up with different undeletion processes than the other? Note: very picky point though, and more me being curious / raising an observation, rather than pointing out something which is posing a problem currently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because they are two different processes. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly recommending that page movers to do some types of "deletion via move" to avoid delays

SOME DB-G6 "make way for a move" deletion requests can be "split" so the move doesn't have to wait for an administrator.

How?

I have a page ready to be moved from OLDPAGE to NEWPAGE.

NEWPAGE exists and is not a single-edit redirect. I slap a {{db-g6}} on it asking it to be deleted to make way for a move.

A "page mover" verifies the db-g6 is reasonable, moves it to a temporary location e.g. NEWPAGE-ToBeDeleted, updates the rationale of the db-g6, then moves OLDPAGE to NEWPAGE, leaving a redirect or not depending on the circumstances.

I continue working on NEWPAGE, without having had to wait for an administrator.

Later, an administrator deletes the temporary page.

The only reasonable objections I can think of are:

  • There aren't enough page movers to really make this worthwhile (less than 400 vs. thousands of administrators)
  • It makes the page log and deletion log history messier vs. a straight-up "delete and move." Since I'm not an administrator I don't know how "messy" this makes things, so this may be a non-issue or it may be a serious objection.

Thoughts? Did I miss anything? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notice: This discussion has been publicized at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Discussion on WT:CSD that would affect those with the page-mover right (permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I check G6 at least once a day, though obviously I'm not on every day (though I rarely see more than about 10 pages in the cat). Is there ever a case where a page absolutely cannot sit for a day or two while it waits for an admin? Primefac (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a hypothetical. Some vandal moves, say, Universe to Randy McRandolph murdered a child, and then immediately does some edits to the new redirect to prevent the page being moved straight back. That would require immediate attention. Reyk YO! 20:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, and while to be completely honest it's been long enough since I've received the mop that I'm not entirely sure what I would do (as a non-admin); I suspect either IRC, AN, or a quick pageswap followed by a G10 would be high on my list of actions taken. Basically, I don't think G6 would be the best way to deal with that sort of situation, but that's because I knew/know a lot of available admins who could deal with it more quickly than that particular template. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive the double-post, but I just re-read the "reasonable objections", and based on my reply above to Reyk I'd say the first one is pretty valid (I'd go for an admin first), and I would definitely argue that it makes cleaning up things more difficult. If you're moving something away from a "vandal name" (again, discussed above) that move would now need to be removed (likely RD2) from at least one more group of logs than with just a reverted move. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a page mover gets involved then there probably won't be a need for any speedy deletion in the first place. If the end goal is to move OLDPAGE to NEWPAGE, then the redirect NEWPAGE can simply be moved to a title that will still be appropriate as a redirect, say NEW PAGE, NEWPAGE (FOO), etc. There are relatively few topics that are so saturated with redirects that you would struggle to think of an eligible one that's not yet been created. But even if there's no eligible new title, the redirect can simply be moved from the temporary title onto the title formerly occupied by the now moved page, effectively swapping NEWPAGE and OLDPAGE. That's described at WP:SWAP and WP:ROBIN – there's a script that performs these steps at a single click, so the technique is widely used (and also frequently misused). The usual way to ask for an uncontroversial move is at WP:RMT (rather than using G6), most editors who patrol that are pagemovers, and they would almost always use a pageswap to perform the move. – Uanfala (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of discussions

I don't know how many gnomes we have watching this page, but I have a proposal/request (which I will happily take part in should there be enough interest). In the last few days I've been involved in a few discussion regarding this CSD criteria or that one, and each time I've had to search through the archives and hope that what I'm looking for shows up in the first few hits. So far I've been lucky (today I came across the origins of T3 as the first hit), but it got me thinking that we should have some sort of listing of "discussions about CSD criteria X", so that if (for example) you wanted to talk about why A7 doesn't count for books, you would at the very least have a list of discussions that pertained to A7.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we have a list of every criteria and the topic of that discussion (unless there's a big interest in that), just a place to start when making sure you're referring to the right rationale (or just refreshing your memory). As far as format goes, I figured it could be set up like {{Old moves}} and easily collapsed. Thoughts? Primefac (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac I agree that such a list would be useful, but it would require significant manual work to create it, and more to maintain it. I can't see how it could be created except by going though manually all 76 archives of this page. Well perhaps the earliest ones could be skipped. Then onw would need to add to the list each thread that significantly discussed a given criterion. That requires human input. Then every new archive page would need to be scanned and the appropriate links added to the list page.s it worth the effort? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T3 waiting period

There was a discussion at Template_talk:Db-meta#T3_and_C1_categories about the lack of a holding category, separate from CAT:T3 and similar to CAT:EMPTY for C1, for templates awaiting CSD T3. Some users, myself included, questioned why the 7-day waiting period is necessary in the first place. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a template is a substantial duplicate, it MAY be because someone is doing some testing or other template re-organization. In those cases, an "almost zero notice" deletion would be disruptive. In the rest of the cases, which admittedly is a majority if not a vast majority, a 7 day waiting period is harmless. I would be open to a 2-day waiting period with a no-questions-asked WP:REFUND if asked for within 5 days, but that might just be adding bureaucracy. Likewise, I would be open to having pending T3 deletions listed prominently all in one place, with the dates that the CSD was added to them, so that interested editors can object in a timely manner. This could easily be done with a bot that tracks membership in whatever category T3s are in, by doing a partial transclusion of pages that have the T3 template on them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think T3 is quite wonky as well and that the 7-day hold is weird and makes it a lot less effective, but I would definitely not want it removed. In my experience from having CAT:T3 on my watchlist is that there are a lot of dubious nominations and ones that would technically qualify as duplicates but would clearly not be controversial, usually because recent activity, historical use or occasionally even widespread current use. These are almost always removed before the 7 days are up. With the amount of potentially controversial nominations I'm seeing I've been wondering if it would be better just abolishing the criteria instead; I even asked for a list of all 15 templates deleted using T3 during the month prior to June 12 2020. My opinion based on analyzing this data set was basically that most of them could be dealt with redirects, G2, G4 and wrong namespace G6 leaving just a handful that would need an actual TfD. One of these would be Template:House of Hohenzollern (Germany); a fork of Template:House of Hohenzollern (Prussia) that allowed the template to display the sections for only the three German Emperors which was not possible in the main template. If this went through TfD this functionality would almost definitely been added to the main template rather than losing a potentially useful feature. That being said there are few bad deletions actually being made here because our admins are competent and know what would be considered too far even though this badly worded criteria technically would allow for a deletion. My preference here would be removing the criteria and letting the handful of templates that can't be handled with other criteria or a redirect go to TfD increasing the workload by roughly a percent or two. If not I think the holding period should be kept to allow for some more oversight of this potentially abusable criteria. I'm very curious to see what admins actually review these think though. --Trialpears (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A7 School exemption

I'm curious, does the A7 exemption to schools extend through to individual department or faculties or does it stop at the institute proper? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the exception specifically protects them from A7, but I also suspect it's rarely going to be a good use because most faculties are plausible redirects to their parent institution. If the "University of Clogtown Knitting Department" doesn't assert significance, redirect it to "University of Clogtown" with a view to merging anything that's salvageable. I don't think I'd have a problem considering something on the extreme low-end ("Mrs Fish's 4rd grade class at Clogtown Elementary") as an A7able group, but as usual with CSDs I'm not actually sure how often any real edge-cases come up. Are there any specific examples you're thinking of? ~ mazca talk 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with mazca'a assessment that in most cases they should be mergeable/redirectable but minor subgroups are not protected per se. Regards SoWhy 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=981004225"