Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 25

Removal of tags

I've always heard that anyone but the author may remove a speedy tag for any non-vandalous reason, and it can't be put back. However, some people have started to say that only admins can remove the tag, or that non-admins may only remove it if the article clearly does not fail a CSD. Since people are starting to oppose RfAs over this, it needs to be clarified. -Amarkov moo! 04:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone except the author can remove a tag, but there is no basis to say that "it can't be put back". The removal may very well be wrong. Obviously, revert warring about it would not be productive, etc., but the simple removal of a speedy tag is not some binding decision. —Centrxtalk • 05:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I don't see that being an admin has anything to do with it. There can be no basis for anyone reinstating a removed speedy which is contested in good faith, since speedy is only for incontestable deletions. Edit warring over a speedy is not appropriate--it should go to AfD, which exists for the purpose of conducting such debates. If something is not clear, its not a valid speedy. If in doubt, it is not a speedy. if there is any grounds for doubt, it is not a speedy. In the case of someone gaming the system by contesting nonsense, on the other hand, I think an admin is justified in deleting anyway, as long as the admin is prepared to defend the action if challenged. We have previously discussed some examples on this page. DGG 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. Many pages should be deleted but are "contested". In such case though, it should be brought to the admin noticeboard for immediate deletion. Some extreme examples are attack pages and copyvios. Some person edit warring over the tag does not mean that the deletion is in doubt or that it is not a valid deletion. —Centrxtalk • 01:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Even for copyvio, I have seen tags put on when deletion of a paragraph would have sufficed. But I agree that there are cases where the fact that it's contested can be ignored, which I could sum up as Bad Faith Hangons. There are quite a number, and the proportion seems to be increasing. DGG 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • PROD tags shouldn't be put back, that's the whole point of PROD. Speedy tags, however, can certainly be put back if the article meets a speedy criterion, and the absence of a speedy tag does not in any way protect an article from being speedied. >Radiant< 08:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I think I mixed up my processes there. Anyway, does anyone not think that non-admins should be able to remove speedy tags? -Amarkov moo! 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If the article clearly doesn't meet the cited speedy criterion, adding the tag in the first place is arguably vandalism that should be reverted, but since I imagine that the vast majority of tag removals are done by people who simply don't think that the article should be deleted even though it's clearly in violation of Wikipedia policies, it's probably best to do anything we can to discourage non-admins from removing the tags. Geoffrey Spear 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
        • If an article doesn't meet the speedy criteria, it should be untagged by anyone. Especially if the article is expanded by the person untagging it. In some cases, the author should untag it, for example, when an overzealous new page patroller marks a partial save for deletion as "empty". The speedy category is backlogged badly enough as it is; we do not need people who discourage non-admins from helping out by removing inappropriate tags. Kusma (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I got the same complaint once upon a time. Some people believe that since admins are the only ones who can delete, they should be the only ones to remove invalid CSD tags. I just replied that this was not the case and cited chapter and verse, and the person said "oh, okay!". Case closed. -- nae'blis 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins removing tags in good faith is actually much appreciated. Removing a tag is quite time consuming (if you use a good summary and notify), I could probably delete 5 no-brainers in the time it takes me to remove one invalid tag. I think this is a big reason CSD gets so backlogged... all those ones that should probably be untagged but no one feels like dealing with so it sits there for 10 hours. So if non-admins want to do a decent job of removing invalid speedies, more power to them. --W.marsh 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. Removing a clearly valid tag is wrong, whoever does it. Removing an invalid tag, or expanding an article so that a previously valid tag (such as "empty", "no context", or A7) no longer applies improves the encyclopedia, and is thus a very good thing. Anyone can do this, and anyone who is willing to do a good job of it should, and should be praised, not criticized, for doing so. Of course, some cases are borderline, but that is the nature of things, and non-admins are as free to weigh-in on borderline issues as anyone. DES (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since articles have no WP:OWNer, this means anyone may remove a CSD tag, right? Or what's going on here? --Kim Bruning 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is explictly request that the article creator not remove a speedy tag, but use {{hangon}} instead. This is not because the creator owns the article, s/he does not. It is because the creator has already expressed an opnion by creating the article, and endless revert wars can too easily happen if creators remove tags, or perhaps worse, validly placed tags are removed, and the page falls off the new pages lsit, and is far more likely to be missed. Thus removign a speedy tag from an article you crfeated is considered vandalism, and ther is a whole series of uw (user warning) tamplates for it. DES (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't A2 a general criterion?

I wasn't sure what to do when I saw Template:صندوق just now - evidently it doesn't belong here as it's a foreign language template, but at the same time I figured it wouldn't fall under A2 (foreign language article) as it's a template, not an article, and there are no other criteria which suit it. Why is A2 exclusive for articles? Surely someone could just as easily copy over a category, template or userpage from a foreign language Wikipedia, would they not be speedily deletable as well? - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 14:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Probably because it doesn't happen all that often. As such I would suggest using WP:TFD instead. >Radiant< 14:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There are some cases where templates in a foreign languages are considered useful, such as Template:User it (which I presume exists on other projects). Tizio 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There are also cases where a person whose primary language is not English, or who doesn't speak English at all but only does edits that doesn't require speaking English, may wish to include information about themselves or what they're working on in their first language on their user page or a subpage, or discuss something on a discussion page in their own language. I for one have frequently left messages regarding Commons-related activities on talk pages on other wikis in English. A2 should certainly apply to categories as well, though. Dcoetzee 22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons media categorisation


I've encountered a user who has created several categories for images as analogues to categories on the Commons based on the idea that then linking those categories to the Commons makes locating images easier, even though there is far less image content on WP and so the result is many categories for a few images; they have even begun categorising Commons media that are not even used on WP (1,2,3,4) so as to populate the hierarchy of categories created (1,2). My understanding was that we were actively in the process of moving all free images to the Commons, and so it followed that if not reducing image infrastructure on WP, we shouldn't be increasing it. After an inquiry to an admin working on image categorisation that recommended that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to deletion of one of the images, this user promptly created a page for the Commons image and again categorised it on WP. According to that sort of convention, wouldn't we have every image from the Commons categorised by their WP pages on WP, thus pretty much negating the utility of separate projects? Please advise, TewfikTalk 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

far less? en's image database is a little over 50% of the size of commons. there is still over 700K images.Geni 05:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant in this specific case, there are a minimal and fairly static number of images to which these new categories would apply, so that a small number of images had many more layers of categories than would otherwise be warranted (especially since there were often redundant categories added). TewfikTalk 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image description pages for images on commons are WP:CSD I2. I think a category for the same purpose would also be a speedy delete. Whatever category the "commons category" is placed in should/could have a link to the commons category/media. A category on commons isn't a problem, if it's populated. MECUtalk 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(I've copied this over from Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion - I would very much appreciate a definitive answer.) TewfikTalk 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik copied all of the above discussion from another page. There has been no discussion here (until my comment now). In spite of this Tewfik unilaterally changed one of the speedy deletion criteria. Here is the diff.

The comment by Mecu in the above discussion incorrectly cites WP:CSD I2. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Tewfik has been trying for a couple months (starting March 7, 2007) to depopulate several image map categories at wikipedia in order to put those categories up for speedy deletion. Especially map categories with the name "Palestinian territories" in them. See Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories for a bigger picture if you are interested.

Tewfik is Israeli, and his motive for eliminating these particular wikipedia image categories is obvious if one examines his edits and talk page comments. He does not like the name "Palestinian territories." This latest attempt to eliminate the categories was by subtly rewriting a section of the criteria for speedy deletion. Then he added a speedy-delete notice to the images that populate the categories in question. His next step would have been to put a speedy-delete notice on empty categories. Some of the categories in question have subcategories linked from them, so the speedy-delete would not have occurred.

See Tewfik's user contributions, and select "images" from the namespace dropdown window. Here is a direct link. Note the image edits starting March 7, 2007. First he tried removing the category links from the images several times, and then putting the categories up for speedy deletion. But I noted this on their talk pages, so that tactic can not work as long as there maps that belong in those categories. I put the URLs for those maps in the category talk pages so admins have reason to wait before speedy deleting the categories.

So now Tewfik is instead trying to eliminate the permanent wikipedia image placeholder pages for images stored on the commons. Wikipedia image placeholder pages are common throughout the many image categories. Click on any wikipedia image on any wikipedia article page and you get the temporary or permanent placeholder page. That page lists all the wikipedia articles in which the image is found. It also sometimes lists the categories in which the image is sorted. These are oftentimes different categories from the commons. The English wikipedia categories also do not have most of the foreign-language-labeled images found in the commons.

So anyway, wikipedia image placeholder pages are a longstanding wikipedia tradition. The programmers long ago created the mechanism for instantly creating a wikipedia placeholder page. That page becomes permanent when the image page also has wikipedia category links on it, or other info specific to wikipedia. Those category links allow ENGLISH wikipedia editors and readers to explore related images out of curiosity, or out of a need to find more English-language (usually) images for use in English wikipedia articles.

I have reverted Tewfik's unilateral change of the speedy deletion criteria. From the top of this talk page are these instructions:

"If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page."

I added the bold emphasis. --Timeshifter 12:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

While I am very interested to discover my true nationality and what my secret motives for doing this are, there is discussion on this page and several others reflecting that creating image deletion pages for media not on WP is contrary to policy. TewfikTalk 14:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There was no discussion on this talk page. So there was no consensus to change this wikipedia policy. Here is the quote again from the beginning of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion concerning making policy changes: "Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page."
You made a policy change unilaterally without getting a reply first on this talk page. You copied discussion from another talk page. From that discussion elsewhere Mecu discussed WP:CSD I2. From "Corrupt or empty image. Before deleting this type of image, verify that the MediaWiki engine cannot read it by previewing a resized thumbnail of it. This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images." So Mecu was incorrect. Because WP:CSD I2 does not apply to the topic at hand.
You linked to a comment on your user talk page from User:Xaosflux. I commented later at User talk:Xaosflux#Commons media in English wikipedia categories. He then replied to me on my talk page with a comment on March 25, 2007. From User talk:Timeshifter#Common's categories: "It seems like there is a dispute going on here as to the acceptability of these categories. While I've got an opinion on the matter, it is not a strong one, and I am trying to avoid getting in to this dispute. What I have a srong opinion on is simply that we should not speedy delete categories on en: if doing so will leave red-linked categories on other pages, and thats about it. Category talk pages and if it comes to it WP:CFD is the approriate venue to discuss this. Thanks, --xaosflux"
WP:CFD has to do with "deletion, merging, and renaming of categories". You tried to speedy delete the categories in question, but that did not work because the categories were not empty.
Xaosflux's last comment was about categories, not images. So you have not quoted anyone who agrees with you currently about your proposed policy change concerning wikipedia image description pages. --Timeshifter 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see some related discussion farther down in a section titled "Clarification of I8". I commented further there. The comment there from User:Grm wnr seems to confirm what I am saying about keeping local English wikipedia image description pages that have category links. --Timeshifter 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I pulled up the other related talk sections so that there is less need for repetition. The 2 sections titled "Clarification of I8" and "I8 clarification". --Timeshifter 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of I8

Part of I8 currently reads: If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion. That seems to imply that in a case where no information is lost, the WP image description page of Commons media should be deleted. Furthermore, if that isn't the case, it seems that there is nothing preventing any or every image on the Commons from also having a WP image description page. I suggest that we clarify that such image description pages should be subject to I8, or alternatively, that image description pages of Commons media not used on WP be subject to I8. Please let me know what you think, TewfikTalk 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This proviso is actually contradictory with the sentence which comes before, which states that all information should be transferred to Commons. It also fails the "new CSD" guidelines at the top of this page, as such images are rare and the inclusion of the proviso makes the criterion unnecessarily complex. If Commons realy can't cope with having en-featured tags, then Featured Pictures should be exempted from I8. Physchim62 (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you might have misunderstood me, as I'm not trying to apply I8 to featured pictures. I'm simply trying to clarify how the existing policy deals with WP image description pages of media on the Commons (especially in cases where it isn't used on WP), and to discuss solutions for dispelling any ambiguity. TewfikTalk 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is
  1. Remove the part of I8 which you cite, as it is confusing, contradictory and unnecessary;
  2. If removing the part creates problems because Commons would have a few en-specific tags on its IDFs, then exempt "problem pictures" from speedy deletion all together and make them go through normal image deletion (they won't by many which fall under this case)
I think I'm responding to your point, but if I'm not, don't worry, I apologise, but I still think my suggestion is worthwhile :) Physchim62 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good suggestion, but still not what I'm talking about. All I want to know is the status of WP IDPs for Commons media, and whether it is subject to CSD. It seems to be implied from the selection I quoted above. If not, then what criteria prevents any or all Commons media from having WP IDPs? TewfikTalk 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As the one who originally wrote section I8 back in the day, I have to mention that it's full off caveats and relatively verbose for a reason: To get it to fly at all (a rule like that had been discussed and shot down for various reasons literally for years). I expected it to get more lenient as time progresses (another is the one-week rule, which I thought would be temporary but which has proven surprisingly resilient. If one were to revamp I8 it's another point that could be simply dropped), but for some reason that never happened. Anyway, the reasoning was and is as follows:

  • IDPs are considered to be basically inseperable from the image.
  • No information must be lost in a speedy move to Commons.
  • However, there is information on IDPs that may be redundant or, even worse, contradictory to the kind of information Commons needs. Mostly Featured status, and I can't think of any others right now, but there may be more.
  • Commons IDPs are subject to the editorial rules of Commons, which may differ from the en ones, which may theoretically be a problem.
  • If there is a local IDP, both are displayed, so it's no basic problem in having a local one, apart from the fact that it's another page to take care of.
  • So, it's a good idea to keep a local IDP if there is a good reason for it, but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier.

If somebody manages to make a good, consistent rule out of the above, feel free to be bold. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What I would like to see is a clearer restatement of your last line, maybe something like: A Wikipedia image description page of media on the Wikimedia Commons should be deleted unless it includes information that is contradictory to or disruptive of the Commons, such as {{FeaturedPicture}}. Let me know, TewfikTalk 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So does anyone have a better formulation, or shall I add this in in place of the negatively framed passage quoted above? TewfikTalk 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on a suggestion to clarify, I've settled on and replaced the passage with: A Wikipedia image description page of media on the Wikimedia Commons should be deleted unless it includes information that is not relevant to the Commons, such as {{FeaturedPicture}}. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, except, well... deleting an image automatically deletes the description page as well (at least it did that when I last deleted an image, it's been a while). So maybe it should say "remain deleted" - but then again, anyone able to delete an image should be aware of this, and this page should deal more with the rule instead of the implementation. It's no big deal either way. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not see this additional talk section on this subject until now. See my comments in the related section higher up called "Commons media categorisation". The original version of the CSD policy before Tewfik changed it was better. The one that said: "If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion." Though I think the "not" is a typo from who knows when, and should not be there.

The reason the original version of the policy is better is because the English wikipedia image description page (for images stored on the commons) can have categories linked on it. So the wikipedia image description page may have to be undeleted after the image itself is moved to the commons. Tewfik is not actually talking about moving images to the commons. He is trying to delete English wikipedia image description pages long after the image has been moved to the commons. See the more detailed discussion at "Commons media categorisation".

Also, Tewfik seems to be ignoring what User:Grm_wnr previously wrote here about image description pages (IDPs). Here are some excerpts with emphasis added:

"As the one who originally wrote section I8 back in the day, ...

  • IDPs are considered to be basically inseperable from the image.
  • No information must be lost in a speedy move to Commons.
  • However, there is information on IDPs that may be redundant or, even worse, contradictory to the kind of information Commons needs. Mostly Featured status, and I can't think of any others right now, but there may be more.
  • Commons IDPs are subject to the editorial rules of Commons, which may differ from the en ones, which may theoretically be a problem.
  • If there is a local IDP, both are displayed, so it's no basic problem in having a local one, apart from the fact that it's another page to take care of.
  • So, it's a good idea to keep a local IDP if there is a good reason for it, but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier."

The reasons for local IDPs are for the English wikipedia categorization reasons I explained much more thoroughly at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation and Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. This is a longstanding tradition.--Timeshifter 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is extremely misleading considering that he was in favour of the rephrase, only objecting that it should be immediately obvious. TewfikTalk 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Grm_wnr suggested changing your rewrite of the policy. You did not include his suggestion in your rewrite when you added it to the CSD policy page. So you did not have any consensus to change the policy.
Also your version of the policy does not make a lot of sense. Your version from this talk section: "A Wikipedia image description page of media on the Wikimedia Commons should be deleted unless it includes information that is contradictory to or disruptive of the Commons, such as {{FeaturedPicture}}."
How are wikipedia category links "disruptive" or "contradictory" to the commons. The wikipedia category pages are completely separate and different from the commons categories.
What you actually ended up adding to the CSD article page was: "A Wikipedia image description page of media on the Wikimedia Commons should be deleted unless it includes information that is not relevant to the Commons, such as {{FeaturedPicture}}."
Even that version does not allow for deleting local English wikipedia image description pages that have category links. Wikipedia category links are not relevant to the Commons.
The original version of the policy makes more sense: "If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion."
Except I bet the "not" was mistakenly added long ago by somebody else confused by this topic. It ought to be rewritten to something like
If there is any non-commons-related information or links on the wikipedia image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}} or category links), the wikipedia image description page must be undeleted after the image file deletion.--Timeshifter 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be extremely appreciative of comment from others here. The actions above are being used to justify the creation of IDPs for Commons media and their categorisation on WP, seemingly ad infinitum, which is disruptive to the project and decreases the utility of categorisation as well as transwikiing, as well as being implicitly disallowed under the current CSD. The most recent examples (of dozens [1][2][3]). TewfikTalk 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Local English IDPs (image description pages) for images stored on the commons are created whenever the images used in wikipedia articles are clicked. This is done through the trans-wiki process. When categories are added to those local English IDPs, that info is saved at wikipedia. The trans-wiki process combines the commons info with the wikipedia info to create the local English IDPs. It is all completely normal or the programmers would not have set it up that way. Each different-language wikipedia has the same setup. That way each wikipedia in each language can categorize and easily find the images labeled in its language. That is how it works. --Timeshifter 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Timeshifter here. Having a picture in the Commons categories is fine, but there's no reason I see why it can't be in local categories too. And either way, no wording of I8 which has ever existed seems to me like it would disallow such a thing. -Amarkov moo! 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So my question is why the text says "undelete" if it has a featured tag, implying it would otherwise be deleted, since all 1.4 million commons images could be categorised? TewfikTalk 07:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of those commons images ARE categorized in English wikipedia categories. That is my whole point here, Tewfik. You are trying to change a longstanding wikipedia method of classifying commons images in local-language Wikipedia categories. All just so you can depopulate a few English wikipedia map categories with the names "Palestinian territories" and "Golan Heights" in the category names, and then put up those categories for speedy deletion. You are Israeli, as you have freely pointed out on talk pages, and it is such an obvious POV you are trying to introduce from the right-wing of Israeli politics into English wikipedia. The right wing of Israeli politics does not like to acknowledge those names. But for those territories those names are the common names used in the world. And wikipedia naming policies require using the most common names. --Timeshifter 07:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The original policy at CSD said "If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the [image] file deletion."
I took out the word "not". It is a grammatical error. Note the word "any". That CSD policy is within a larger policy about transferring the image itself to the commons, and what to do about the remaining local image description page (IDP), the uploading history, etc.. That CSD policy is not about encouraging people to come back months and years later and remove local English category links from local IDPs. The policy is about the immediate cleaning up after moving an image file to the commons, deleting the image file from wikipedia, and moving the uploading history to the commons. --Timeshifter 07:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your gross AGF violations and conspiracy theories out of this discussion. It is none of your concern or at all relevant what my nationality is, and no diffs of me "freely" saying any such thing exists. TewfikTalk 08:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Get real, Tewfik. You have discussed it freely. I am not going to go back and hunt up the diffs. And your POVs are not a conspiracy theory. We have already discussed your POVs and this naming dispute on multiple category, article, and user talk pages. For example: Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter 08:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What on earth makes you imagine you can disqualify Tewfik's edits based on alleged nationality that you have invented? This is an egregious violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You owe Tewfik an apology on several grounds. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not disqualifying anyone. I am disagreeing with Tewfik. I disagree with Tewfik on many issues. I pointed out his nationality in relation to the politics of the issues involved. Are you saying it is not relevant to discuss someone's nationality or religion when discussing issues connected to nationality and religion? I see the nationality and religious affiliation of editors discussed frequently by admins on incident boards. There are frequent disagreements between Hindu and Muslim editors for example. Tewfik has discussed the nationality and religion of editors. Editors usually aren't hiding either one. I did not assume bad faith. I was civil. So exactly what wikipedia guideline did I break? I would like a guideline quote please. If I broke a wikipedia guideline, I have no problem apologizing. But I have often disagreed with you Jayjg, both on talk pages, and on incident boards, and I want something more significant than your pronouncements. I follow wikipedia guidelines, not wikipedia editors. So, please quote the wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The technical policy question at hand has nothing to do with politics or religion, so it's inappropriate to bring those up here. Doing so anyway is a blatant violation of WP:NPA (using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views). --Latebird 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not dismissing or discrediting Tewfik's views. I was illuminating his views. From WP:NPA is this: "There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion"
Those are bald lies. You are inventing stories, and conveniently refuse to even present your "proof". TewfikTalk 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
My recollection is that you did not disagree when this was mentioned before. But now you seem offended. So I will not mention it again. I meant no disrespect by discussing nationality. If you were offended, I apologize. I don't remember on what talk page I got the idea that you were Israeli. But here is a photo you took: Image:Alon Shvut.JPG of an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. It doesn't prove anything, but you asked for "proof." That is all I can pull up quickly now. In any case I am not pursuing this further. --Timeshifter 14:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of offence, but of you brazenly fabricating a reason that in your mind disqualified me from an unrelated policy discussion, that if true would still be a violation of WP:NPA. Its about you further creating a flawed "recollection" when the comments appear quite clearly on this very page. And its about what are merely the latest of many comments based on incivility and discussion of editors instead discussion of policy/content. The fact that you actually dug through my edits and in the same line acknowledge that "it doesn't prove anything" while still trying to justify your behaviour makes the need for a real apology, and more importantly a cessation of this type of disruption, all the more crucial. TewfikTalk 07:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I already apologized for the offense in question. The rest of what you said is BS. There have been several incident reports where you have been unfavorably mentioned by several people. --Timeshifter 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It may have been Amoruso's comment at Talk:October 2000 events that I was remembering: "I drove through those roads [in Israel] later and there was not a single traffic light that the 'solidarity protestors' didn't break." His user page acknowledges that he is Israeli. You asked for "proof" so I looked through your edits to try to find your relevant comments. I saw the photo upload there. I vaguely remembered that the talk comment was on Talk:October 2000 events. So I looked there and found the comment. So I was mistaken about who made the comment. I apologize again. Feel free to delete this part of the thread here if you want to. --Timeshifter 16:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I went back and struck through the comments in question. Feel free to delete all of the thread dealing with this issue.--Timeshifter 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"There have been several incident reports where you have been unfavorably mentioned by several people", and there you go again with more halftruths ad hominems that are in any event irrelevant to whether you violated NPA or not. "Israeli" isn't an expletive any more than "Palestinian", and so beyond the fact that the claim that I discussed it wasn't true, that is not the offence. The problem is "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" on this and other pages. That is what you need to apologise for, and more importantly, stop doing. TewfikTalk 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I have mentioned nationality in other cases. The comment about incident reports was about this BS statement of yours: "And its about what are merely the latest of many comments based on incivility and discussion of editors instead discussion of policy/content." You should apologize for all your many incivilities, exaggerations, etc.. --Timeshifter 01:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to continue with you trying to justify what you did wrong by inventing things that I've done wrong. You've "reported" me for various matters that garnered indifference or comments questioning the validity of such accusations because you never supplied proof of any of these charges, then or now. If you want to apologise for the personal attack violation and cease the discussion of editors instead of content, do so. If you have diffs of my supposed incivil comments, then produce them, or stop making such charges. Evidence (not different pages, but still two sections of this page [4][5]) trump any 'beliefs' and 'recollections'. Regardless, this isn't the place for any of this. TewfikTalk 01:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You say you have no desire to continue this, yet you continue with general accusations and BS. On many talk pages, and on some incident report pages, your many incivilities have been mentioned by others. If you want to apologize for your personal attack violations and cease the discussion of editors instead of content, do so. --Timeshifter 02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm only going to ask once more that you not make accusations without providing a diff. I've provided diffs of your personal attack, which is on this page. If you don't want to apologise for it, just say so, but this is not the place for continuing this discussion. TewfikTalk 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You make general accusations, and throw in a few diffs, all while saying this is not the place for continuing this discussion. I'm only going to ask once more that you not make accusations. With or without the diffs. --Timeshifter 03:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a personal attack on this page, whose diffs I provided. Whether or not you choose to apologise for the personal attack, your responding with accusations of personal attacks on my part, without evidence no less, is inappropriate. TewfikTalk 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have provided evidence numerous times of your incivilities. I don't need to repeat all the previous discussion about all this. When you apologize for all of your incivilities I may find your actions here less inappropriate. --Timeshifter 05:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also completely untrue; if you have evidence of my supposed personal attacks of incivilities, then please cite the diffs in a report on AN/I. Otherwise I insist that you stop making allegations (especially when they have nothing to do with this page) without any sources. TewfikTalk 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is completely true, and it was pointed out numerous times. I insist that you stop making allegations (especially when they have nothing to do with this page). I insist also that you stop insisting. --Timeshifter 08:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, parroting me does sound like a productive response. "It is completely true, and it was pointed out numerous times." You are of course continuing to make unsourced allegations. My only "allegation" is a request that you apologise for your personal attack on this page ([6][7]). I'll tell you one more time, either report my supposed "personal attack", or stop accusing me of such. TewfikTalk 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll tell you one more time... --Timeshifter 10:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So you aren't going to apologise for your personal attack ([8][9]) against me then? TewfikTalk 07:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll tell you one more time... I have already apologized. See previous discussion. I'll tell you one more time...--Timeshifter 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You said "If you were offended, I apologize". Do you recognise that it was a personal attack then and not merely an insult? Additionally, can you either cross-out your allegation that I committed a personal attack or present evidence of it? Thank you, TewfikTalk 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
All of this has been discussed already. See previous discussion. --Timeshifter 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The info in this section was also discussed in this incident report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#Image description pages. --Timeshifter 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I8 clarification

Hi all, I would really appreciate if others could sound off about whether they feel the creation of Wikipedia image description pages for media on the Commons is acceptable or not. Part of the current criteria reads: If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion.

My understanding was that that implied IDPs not containing such templates would have already been deleted. A user is arguing that categorisation also requires undeletion, which means that the vast majority of media on the Commons, if not all 1.4 million, could have IDPs recreated on Wikipedia (like so [10][11][12]). For the record, I rephrased the line in question based on discussion above, which was reverted by the user making the above argument. AMarkov initially held the revert, but noted that had he been aware of the full history he would not have reverted. The previous discussion is located above. Due to the history, I don't anticipate bilateral success, which makes outside parties' comments that much more valuable. TewfikTalk 02:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For articles we have A3 prohibiting pages containing only links (including category links). Conceptually speaking, a local IDP for a commons based image is not much different. I don't quite see the point in duplicating information (IDPs and entire category strucures) here that is already present on Commons, just so that we can garnish it with local links. Doing so is a vote of distrust against the Commons, saying "they can't do their categories right, so let's do them again here". Other than {{FeaturedPicture}} and other possible exceptions that Commons can't handle, I'd vote for speedying local IDPs and the related category trees. Those categories do nothing but to prevent people from uploading images to the Commons right away. --Latebird 12:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The guideline you refer to does not apply to the discussion at hand. Many of the images on the commons are not labeled in English. So wikipedia editors and readers use the wikipedia image categories to do further research in English, or to find images labeled in English to use on English wikipedia.
I moved all 3 talk sections closer to each other to avoid needless repetition. I changed nothing. I suggest Latebird, that you also read the preceding discussions if you haven't already. --Timeshifter 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Many of the images on the commons are not labeled in English. - which should be motivation to label them there, not to create redundant structures here. I have read all the preceding discussion that I could find, because this unnecessary duplication has been disturbing me for quite some time. Of course I know that A3 does not directly apply here. But the intention behind it (and behind C1, for that matter) should still be taken into account for this discussion. It helps to remember that a local IDP (even an automatically generated one without local content) is basically just a link to an external resource. Is there any other place in WP where we categorize external resources without adding any actual content? --Latebird 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A3 only applies to articles. C1 only applies to empty categories. The categories in question are not empty. They have images and subcategories. Images on the commons that are labeled in English can not be changed to English without using an image editor. Then they would have to re-uploaded with the new labeling. The old commons image would remain of course, because other-language wikipedias need the other-language labeling. Categories are indexing systems to help people navigate articles, images, etc.. They are very useful, and many readers use them. --Timeshifter 14:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because A3 and C1 apply to different types of pages doesn't mean that the intention behind them should be completely reversed when dealing with images. The guiding principle should always be the same: Avoid creating pages that don't add any information.--Latebird 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Category pages are different from article pages. And they are treated differently. Category pages often consist only of links. An article page containing only links would be deleted. --Timeshifter 20:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
When there are labels within an image itself, then it is standard practise to upload different language versions to Commons in parallel. I don't quite understand how that relates to this discussion, though. They will still get sufficiently categorized in Commons, without any need to duplicate that work here. --Latebird 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Latebird, I just want to reiterate my total agreement with you on this issue. I hope that other editors can voice their opinions so that we can issue a clear pronouncement. TewfikTalk 01:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
People can not immediately access the wikimedia commons categories from the English wikipedia image description pages (IDP). They have to click the commons image link on the English IDP, and then go to the bottom of the commons image description page to get to commons categories. This is an unintuitive way to get to commons categories.
Most English wikipedia readers and editors want to click the image they see on wikipedia, and then immediately see the image categories linked on the local IDP that shows up. Readers see category links on the bottom of article pages. So it is intuitive for readers to look for category links on the bottom of image pages (IDPs).
That way they get to see English-labeled images first without having to wade through all the other-language images on the commons. If they want to see the commons image categories there is usually a link leading to the commons category with the same name. That is if someone has added that link to the wikipedia category page.
So with the current longstanding image category system for local IDPs most people see the categories that interest them first. That being the categories with English-language-labeled images. --Timeshifter 20:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Most English wikipedia readers and editors want to click the image they see on wikipedia, and then immediately see the image categories linked on the local IDP - How many WP readers did you interview to verify that rather bold claim? It seems much more likely that for most readers, image categorization is inconsequental, because they only look at images in the context of reading articles. Image categorization primarily helps the editors, and those should be familiar enough with the system to browse for them on Commons. In summary, I have yet to see a compelling argument why we need this duplicated information, and who is supposed to do the multiplied maintenance work. --Latebird 12:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Image categorization primarily helps the editors." That is untrue. Please avoid these sweeping assertions of yours. There are tens of millions of readers of wikipedia. Many probably follow a few article and image category links. Even if only a few do, they number far more than the editors. I should have been clearer in my own assertion. I meant that most people who click images, and who are interested in image categories, want a direct path first to images labeled in their own language. If they want images in other languages, there is frequently a link to the commons category from the wikipedia category. The commons link code is {{commonscat}}
For example; let us say you click the image at the top of this article: 1948 Arab-Israeli War. You are taken to its wikipedia image description page: Image:1948 arab israeli war - May15-June10.jpg. If you are interested in image categories you intuitively go to the bottom of the page, just as for article pages.
At the bottom of the local IDP page you might want to check out this category: Category:Maps of the history of the Palestinian territories. Note that the category title is in English. If you were at French wikipedia, the image category names can be put in French on their local image description page. At the wikipedia category page there is link to the commons category. This way people have the option to check out more images, especially in other languages.
This is a longstanding system. There is no multiplied maintenance work. If people do not see the need to categorize images labeled in their own language, then it does not happen. Many images are categorized in the wikipedia image categories. --Timeshifter 13:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that you accuse me of "sweeping assertions", while you seem to know exactly what other people want, and how many they are. Reality is, we have no idea how many people actually "are interested in image categories". You assume they are many, I assume most of them are editors. And nobody knows what they all really want until they tell us.
I'm not sure why you constantly feel that you need to explain to me how WP works. I edit in several languages, so I may be more familiar with the issues at hand than you assume. I also understand that the Commons were created as a tool to store and categorize images and media, in order to relieve the other WP projects from that task. Since you seem to be primarily concerned with maps (one of the few images types that actually need to be translated), are you familiar with the Commons Atlas? It was specifically designed to be accessible in multiple languages. This is the real solution to your problem, while local IDPs and image categories are a stopgap measure at best. --Latebird 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Also interesting is the continued assertion that "this is common practice", which is neither reflected in the vast majority of media that are not so treated or any guidelines to that effect, and somehow assumes that numbers are the issue here. The same case could be made for any number of inappropriate behaviours, yet I think were someone to say that vandalism were okay due to its popularity, we would immediately recognise the fallacy of the argument. TewfikTalk 23:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been linking to some of the atlas articles from the map categories. Atlases are great. But image categories cover far more topics, and with more images. The commons allows an image to be stored on one server instead of on multiple servers for wikipedias in various languages. Local IDPs need very little storage space since they do not store the images. They just store a few lines of code and text. Such as category links. The rest of the local IDP is transwikied from a standard template and the commons IDP for the image. There is no problem with this system. It works fine. --Timeshifter 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, categories on Commons are almost always in English, as that has been decided upon as the lingua franca. Otherwise, we'd end up having Category:Cheese, Category:Fromage, Category:Queso, etc etc. The only ones that aren't usually in English are taxonomy categories, as those use the Latin names instead. howcheng {chat} 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Commons category names are mostly in English. But one can get some of the page navigation in other languages. See some French-language navigation of the commons map categories:
The local IDP category names are in the language of that particular wikipedia. Thre are many map categories and subcategories at French wikipedia. See the French wikipedia map category names here:
Note the many map categories and subcategories at English wikipedia: --Timeshifter 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So we'll create 1.4 million IDPs for a minority of foreign language categories. It seems that the media that is actually relevant to EN (or other languages) can be dealt with on the Commons, or can be the fraction to which exception is made and IDPs can be created. TewfikTalk 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what is happening now. The images relevant to English wikipedia get categorized in English wikipedia categories. The other commons images are not categorized in English wikipedia categories. Same for French wikipedia. --Timeshifter 00:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia's goal should be to create the best possible encyclopedia, period. If using Commons actually interferes with that goal, then as far as I am concerned it is better to ignore Commons. If we feel that having images locally categorized adds value, then we should do so. If not, then we shouldn't. Ideally the Commons integration should be so seamless so that one effectively can't tell the difference between local images and Commons images, by which I would imply seamless use of watchlists, cross-categorization, upload histories, and everything else, but we are far from that goal. In the mean time, I feel we should focus on doing what's best for Wikipedia and ignore the other issues. If that means creating little image description pages that consist solely of Category tags, then I'm okay with that. Last I checked, for Commons hosted images both the local (if any) and the Commons description page get displayed to the user, so having a transparent local page consisting of just category tags shouldn't interfere with anything. Dragons flight 23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So you really want to create and maintain potentially millions of redundant pages, just to save a mouse click once in a while? But then, the arguments from both sides have been presented and I don't see this ending in a consensus here any time soon. The issue really goes beyond a question of speedy deletion anyway, so it should probably be discussed somewhere else. I'm just not quite sure yet where the right place would be. --Latebird 22:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you want French wikipedia readers trying to navigate English wikimedia category names? Or Russian wikipedia readers trying to figure out English wikimedia commons category names? And so on for all the many wikipedia sites in various languages. There is little maintenance or server space involved in saving a few lines of text for some category names. The work has already been done in creating the software for the automatic transwiki process. --Timeshifter 23:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that the issue was languages, then why replicate English language categories on English language Wikipedia? If there was a need, then it would be for exceptions, and not for what is by far the most common language on Wikimedia. Why have this translation process take place on Wikipedia at all, when one could just as easily replicate on the Commons instead of creating dozens of new copies of the 1.4 million Commons media. And even if we then somehow accepted all that, the impracticality of maintaining such an exponential growth in pages should alone disqualify it. TewfikTalk 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The commons media is not duplicated. It remains stored on the commons. The commons category names are in English. But many images on the commons are labeled in other languages. And there will be many more. So English wikipedia also needs its own image category system for categorizing the images with English labels. There is very little server storage space needed to store a few category links for each image. --Timeshifter 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Disparity with Wikipedia:Non-free content

Why does this page have different time limits from NFC? NFC states, "If an image on which fair use is claimed is not used in any article (Criterion 7), it may be deleted immediately." CSD I5, however, requires a tag and a seven-day waiting period. Pagrashtak 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I know I8 was discussed further up the page in terms of waiting time, but as for I5, I'm not sure. However, when I'm clearing the image backlogs and it turns out I5 applies better than another criteria (such as not having a source, I4), I typically IAR and I5 it on the spot. ^demon[omg plz] 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The image may have recently been uploaded and is intended for use in a particular article, or the image may have been removed from the article by vandalism or some content dispute, for example. If a fair use image is actually not used in any article then it can be deleted, but in practice the absence of an active inclusion of the image in an article does not mean that it is not "used" and that it should be instantly deleted. —Centrxtalk • 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's NFC that's out-of-date in this case. The waiting period is required so that interested parties such as the uploader can be made aware of the problem and have an opportunity to correct it, particularly since as Centrx noted the rule can be exploited to destroy images otherwise. On the other hand, if the image claims fair use and fair use is probably not realistically possible, i.e., it's being used only as protection from deletion, then a quicker deletion may be warranted. Dcoetzee 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why the image deletion subcategories are considered "speedy" at all. It generally takes at least two weeks to get images deleted this way, up to a month if further delayed by some technicality. — CharlotteWebb 10:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"Speedy" means no discussion required, not necessarily the time period between tagging and deletion. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, "streamlined" or "straightforward" deletion might have been a better use of the acronym. -- nae'blis 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A new user warning template

I have been working on a new template. It is a communication aid, and not in the same boat as the uw-vandalism things. This template deals with improper speedy deletion tags apllied, which through sifting a bit through Cat:CSD, I find it becomes more and more useful. The template is temporartily here. It is the first level warning, however. I'd appreciate some feedback as to whether it really has any use, and ways to improve, etc. Evilclown93 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that has much use. Either the user thought that it did qualify for speedy deletion, in which case a templated message is useless for explanation, or they knew that it did not qualify, meaning they're doing it in bad faith and won't care about a templated message. -Amarkov moo! 23:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say a templated message is useless at all, it might give good faith users the incentive to re-read the criteria. Should only be used in instances where they've seriously made a mistake though, for instance tagging a hoax article as patent nonsense, which I see a lot, and that's clearly outlined in the criteria. As for the bad faith taggers, these should be treated as vandals, who are still warned with template messages at all other times, regardless of whether they care about it or not... - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 01:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've got right now three basic message templates. One is a simple "I've removed your speedy tag.", serving as a notice (almost like the "I've put your page for speedy deletion" ones), a newbie one, which guides a newbie to WP:CSD and related pages, and a plain pre-vandalism warning (bad-faith things like tagging Lemon for speedy deletion, which in a way assumes good faith, before starting with vandalism warnings. Here are the templates: 1b ; 1a ; 2 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilclown93 (talkcontribs)
  • Let's not use that. It sounds condescending. >Radiant< 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • When someone places a speedy tag that I disagree with, I often put a message on the talk page of that user. in each such case I take the time to individually explain why i think the particular article or page is not properly subject to speedy deletion. A general template such as the ones linked to just above does not do this. it does not explain in any way why the person removing the tag or placing the template feels the speedy was unwarranted. Such a template might be useful for a speedy tag whose placement seems like obvious vandalism -- placing a speedy tag on Solar system, say -- but not on a good faith but misguided use of a speedy tag. A template that gave the boilerplate part of such a mag (such as links to the CSD page) but required that an individual reason be provided might be of some value, but not the above templates, IMO. DES (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I just drafted User:DESiegel/Speedy-Warn which fits my own prscription above. If people think it might be useful, I could move it to tempalte space. Note that it absolutely requires that a reason be spelled out, because the message makes no sense with the reason ommitted. DES (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I like your template, but I honestly don't like at all "I request", because I feel it sounds too commanding to the noob placing the improprer template. Evilclown93 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I used the word "request" precsely not to sound like a demand, adn to be polite. This mirrors non-tempalted msgs I have left in teh past. How would you suggest wording this to be more polite and less threatening while making it clear that reapplying the tag without discussion may be a poor idea. Perhaps "please consider not..."? DES (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately most users of speedy would not even think of replacing the tag, so I would be reluctant to suggest it to them. Perhaps the template could simply have an optional part at the end for special messages as needed, in addition to the required space for reason. Otherwise I think it's great. DGG 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have encounterd quite a number who have replaced tags, or even deleted, after a tag was removed with a reson why IMO the tag did not apply. Want diffs? But I'll edit to reduce the strength of that. I'll be editing a bit and testing soem more, then i'll move this to tempalte space and announce that here and on the user template msgs page. DES (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Question over I5

Does CSD Images/media 5 (Unused unfree copyrighted images) applies for the talkpages of the deleted AFDs like this one? ----♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(I assume you meant to link to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam/Archive.) Yes, it still applies; our non-free content policy allows such images only in the article namespace, where it must appear at once. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, especially points 7 and 9. —Cryptic 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much :-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


I have been bold and made a slight change to CSD-I3.

In that CSD, we for some reason imply that a non-commercial or "Wikipedia only" image is allowable if it has a fair-use rationale. Clearly, this is nuts - fair use rationales must be able to apply wherever our free encyclopedia may be used - and the point of our free encyclopedia is that it can be used anywhere for any reason, including commercially.

This "fair use" clause is not being enforced in I3 - how can it be, it makes no sense - but is being abused by people who are uploading bad images to Wikipedia. Given both those circumstances, leaving it in is nonsensical.

I can see why it has been put there - Jimbo's original ban on non-commercial/Wikipedia-only images two years ago [13] mentions fair use... but only in the context of older images before the edict was introduced. When he reiterated the point 8 months ago [14] he made no mention of fair use being a get-out-of-jail-free-card: as indeed it isn't, since fair use is, by definition, either fair everywhere or it isn't fair use.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The idea is that for our purposes, non-commercial licenses are treated just like every other non-free image, meaning they can be used with a valid fair use rationale. -Amarkov moo! 20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Ummm, the point is that images licensed as 'for non-commercial use only' and 'non-derivative use', etc. could still qualify for fair use even in the context of commercial and/or derivative use. We don't want to delete things used legitimately under the doctrine of fair use simply because the owner doesn't necessarily like it to be used that way. Secondly, fair use is always context dependent and varies from country to country (with many countries using alternative concepts, e.g. fair dealing). There is no such thing as universal fair use, so your last sentence is nonsensical. However, one may be able to make an argument that a picture of a widget may always be fair use when appearing in a encyclopedic article on widgets, so it might reasonably be argued that it would be fair in all contexts where it is being used as part of an encyclopedia style article. Dragons flight 20:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The fair-use rationale that is being generated is a rationale for fair use on Wikipedia. The non-commercial permission generates a fair-use rational for fair use on Wikipedia. The uploaders have no concept of the reuse of material. They actively want to restrict use to Wikipedia. This line - which is not supported by Jimbo or common sense - is used by uploaders as a justification for that choice. I clear the I3 category daily (nobody else bothers, just me; when I took a week's holiday recently, I came back to 500 entries - proof positive).
Rarely have I come across a Wikipedia policy that means exactly the opposite of what it says, is not supported by Jimbo or by practice, is not compatible with our free licence, and is directly contradicted by the automatic placement of the db template on I3 images, and yet is being kept in because of what it might mean if read a certain way under specific circumstances that don't apply and are never used. Tsk!  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so it certainly needs to be clarified that the rationale must work even if Wikipedia did not get permission to use it. -Amarkov moo! 20:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why keep it at all?  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The same reason why we allow any fair use images. Although I'm not quite sure what that reason is. -Amarkov moo! 21:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, please tell me this isn't you reverting something you agree with again? Coz, mate, really, that's just plain odd :o)  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that fair use images are needed to be a good encyclopedia. I just don't know how the rabid "YOU MAY NOT USE A FAIR USE IMAGE WHERE A TERRIBLE QUALITY FREE ONE VAGUELY RESEMBLES IT", who are the driving force behind not allowing with-permission images, can square their opinion with allowing fair use at all. -Amarkov moo! 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
We need to keep our thounge straight (hmm, does that explression work in English?) when dealing with these images. "All rights reserved" is the most restricted "license" possible, and it also happens to be the default state of all copyrighted works. Basicaly no one is allowed to do anyting with it. By publishing something the copyright holder give a implicit license to view the work, and that's about it. Fair use and other copyright exception doctrines exist to allow various "worthwhile" and "fair" uses of such works anyway without the right-holders permission. Now if someone has released something under license terms that says that you can use the image, but only for non-commercial purposes that's not an added restriction, it's an added freedom to use for non-commercial purposes and a preservation of the default status for commercial use. This added freedom is not enough to meet the definition of free content that we use though, so we don't allow these images based on that, but adding freedoms to the work does not mean it has suddenly become ineligeble for use under the fair use doctrine. So an image licensed for non-commercial use only (or any other possible terms for that matter) can be used under a fair use claim. We simply ignore any additional freedoms the copyright holder have put on the image and treat it like any other "all rights reserved" image. It needs to use a proper "fair use" template, be non-replacable and all naturaly, and fair use rationales along the lines of "fair use because we have permission" and what not is naturaly not going to fly, but if the uploader has made a "good faith" effort to make a fair use case for using the image it's no longer a candidate for deletion under the "invalid license" criteria. If the fair use claim in question does not meet our criteria it becomes a candidate for deletion under criteria I7 (invalid fair use claim) though. --Sherool (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds right to me. Remember that part of the emphasis on free images is so the material can be used on those WPs in countries without a fair use provision.DGG 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Any image which does not satisfy our free license requirements, including non-commercial and limited permission images, should be treated precisely as though all rights were reserved. An image does not become any more or less likely to be usable under fair use because of these loosened restrictions. Dcoetzee 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image CSD notification - Second set of eyes?

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain

I was convinced that when tagging an image with {{orfud}} ( WP:CSD#I5 ) required notification of the uploader to delete. I've just spent an hour and a half trying to determine for sure one way or the other. Can anyone point me to canon on this? Even better, which (if any) CSD criteria require user notification?

Thanks! ~ BigrTex 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • See here, here and here None seem to be the exact origin of I5 (one is the stsrt of I4 I think). I4 had a limited requirement to notify, and some argued for a stronger one. i think I5 initally had an absolute reuirement to notify, but I can't find a page that says so. CSDs do change from their inital proposals over time. In any case, notification is IMO a very good thing, whether is is strictly mandatory or not. See the notifiaction thread earlier on this page for several views on this. DES (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • AFAIK no CSD criteria require notification, with the exception of the 48 hour route for I7 (if you notify it can be deleted after 48 hours, if not then 7 days). It generaly makes sense to notify people to avoid them repeating the same mistakes over and over though, but for orphanded fair use images I don't see the point. No one did anyting wrong, the image is just no longer beeing used. If no one missed it for a week chances are it's not going to be missed at all, and if it does happen we can always undeleted. --Sherool (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I do think at one time some of the image criteria DID require notification, but that was when image deletions could not be undone, and so were more risky. DES (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Chances are the user will revert the edits of whoever had the gall to orphan their image. — CharlotteWebb 18:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a WP:PERENnial issue. Notifying the author of a deletion is certainly nice, but not something that should be mandatory. >Radiant< 08:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yup. Try to remember: image deletion is not the big deal it used to be; it can now be undone. So if someone makes a mistake, or a user finds out too late, things can always be remedied. Mangojuicetalk 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI to anyone reading this who cares, there is an outstanding script available at User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. This script gives you links to automatically tag an image for deletion and notify the uploader. if you notice someone tagging images, but not notifying the uploader, please consider telling them about it. When I am going through the image backlogs, the only place I check for notification is on WP:IFD ... but it's still a really good idea for the uploader to be notified and this script makes it easy. --BigDT 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous case

Hello, I have a question regarding the policies and a definite case... You see, recently "The World Online" video game has been renamed to "The Secret World", and a newly registered editor created a new page instead of renaming the old one. Naturally, the edits history is lost this way, so I'd like to move TWO to TSW properly, thus requiring a quick deletion of the current TSW to "free" the article name. All relevant edits made by the above mentioned user were incorporated into the old article, so no information would be lost with this deletion.

The problem is, I haven't found any SD criteria matching the case and, since it's just a technical misunderstanding, I don't wanna initiate a complete AfD procedure. Can someone help me out here? Thank you in advance. --Koveras  22:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This actually falls uner CSD G6 (Houskeeping) but usually this sort of thing is handled by posting at requested moves or on WP:ANI or just flagging any handy admin. Or use {{merge}} if there is new info to be saved. I'll look at this one. DES (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! ^^ --Koveras  22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DES (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspend A7 until the issues at WP:N are settled.

As you may or may not know, the parts of WP:N relating to assessment of notability are currently disputed following loss of consensus support. A re-write and adjustment of it is in process at the moment. However, this leads to the problem that there is currently no working guideline on Notability.

I suggest that A7 be suspended until this is settled. It may also be an appropriate time to review A7 itself, as is often misused. --Barberio 09:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We can suspend it for 30 minutes; if that is not enough time to fix WP:N I prefer to misuse A7 to a backlog of a couple thousand garage band articles. Kusma (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Or to give a different answer: a large number of A7's are uncontroversial and completely unaffected by what WP:N says. Suspending these deletions would be bad. Kusma (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yay!! Complete anarchy on Wikipedia! I always wondered what would happen if we put all the worst failed proposals into effect, just for a day... Grandmasterka 09:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The odd thing is that looking at the current backlog for these, almost all of them could be nominated for other Criteria. (G1, G11 or A3) Generaly, if an article isn't asserting importance in some way, it's going to have content problems to hit another CSD criteria. --Barberio 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, A7's "assertion of notability" does not depend on the precise definition of notability at WP:N. The definition of notability at WP:N has to do with sources that actually exist; A7's "assertion of notability" just means that sources might exist. (For example "John Smith is a professor at Caswell College" is an assertion of notability because appropriate sources might, or might not, exist on such a person, so that's not an A7 even though it might end up failing WP:N. On the other hand, "John Smith was born in 1987 and lives on Elm Street and is a student at Caswell College" gives no indication that sources might exist, so that is an A7.) On the other point that you just made, I have to say that when I do newpage patrol, there's a ton of A7's that would not fit G1, G11 or A3. Pan Dan 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes but on DRV for instance, the "assertion" part of the phrase is interpreted differently by different folks. Deletionists tend to take "assert" as the actual presence of reliable sources, whereas Inclusionists tend to take "assert" as the fact that someone has claimed that the topic is notable. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Their dispute is truly about the assessment of notability, i.e., determining whether an article which claims notability is actually notable. Over here we are dealing with the assertion of notability, which is simply evaluating whether an article claims notability. They're two different things, and I don't think a conflict in one precludes us from continuing to enforce the other. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's also if the definition of notability is objective or subjective, which *does* impact on A7. Since A7 has historically used the WP:N definition of notability. If A7 were altered to give a fuller definition of what 'assert the importance or significance' means, this wouldn't be an issue. Personally, I'd go with "Where important, significant or notable information on the subject matter is minimal or lacking, and the article is unlikely to be expanded upon." --Barberio 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
A7 predates WP:N, so this request makes little sense. A7 is a practical matter, WP:N and similar pages tends to attract people who believe they can legislate Wikipedia. >Radiant< 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no reason to suspend A7 just because WP:N is a little up in the air. In looking over my deletion log, I found several articles I deleted under A7; one of them said only "Chris is a professional Quad rider from Salinas, California."[15] The idea that I would have to not delete similar articles because a borderline-related guideline is in a state of flux at the moment is a little silly (and yes, WP:N is only barely related to A7; the vast majority of articles I've deleted under A7 were so mind-numbingly obvious that only if WP:N said "subject must exist in some form, and then they're notable" would it actually be applicable). EVula // talk // // 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
A7 doesn't even mention notability, so I'm not sure why we would do this. In fact, most problems with applying A7 come from people who equate it to "article has a non-notable subject". -Amarkov moo! 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, A7 has historically not used the WP:N defination of notability, but a rather lower bar. Anny assertion that, if sourced, might cause a significat fraction of typical editors in an AdF discussion to consider keeping the artilce is enough to block an A7. A7 doesn't even use the word "notability" although "significance or importance" has a very simialr meaning. There is no reason to suspeced A7.DES (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    Going through the current A7s, I've already come across several where the editors appear to have checked for WP:N style sourcing, rather than seeing if the article asserted importance. So it appears that people are currently reading A7 as WP:N based. --Barberio 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    People are reading it that way, true. But seeing as there was no consensus for the proposal to speedy delete articles with no sources at all, speedy deletion of articles without multiple reliable sources certainly isn't allowed. -Amarkov moo! 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that people in the field disagree? :-) --Kim Bruning 08:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If people are doing so, they have to stop. If they don't undelete them, send them to DRV. If they continue to do so afterwards, consider escalating the issue. A7 is controversial enough without people abusing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Proof by assertion isn't. >Radiant< 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete if you simply don't understand the assertion of importance or significance; delete only if you know that there is none.

After all this discussion of A7, I've added the language above to it.

Recently, two administrators deleted Jeffrey Adams (mathematician), which they said contained no assertion of notability. But in fact, the article said that Adams

led the project that calculated the characters of the representations of E8.

Given that that project made headlines in the New York Times and all other newspapers and all over the web in March 2007, that is an assertion of notability. I think those two administrators should have at least realized that they did not understand the quoted phrase. Michael Hardy 20:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I learned very fast to stay away from sports figures. I've since been learning progressively more things to stay away from. This is why I've always felt it should take 2 people, not just one admin, except for blatant vandalism. It should be 3 -- I hope someone monitors the deletion log like people do the newpages. The best of us working carefully might have a 5% error rate. For two people in succession, it goes down to 0.25%, which is one or two per day. DGG 04:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

2 templates connected with speedy deletes

I have created two new notification templates.

{{Speedy-Warn}} is used to notify/warn someone that a speedy delete tag that s/he has placed has been considered inappropriate and has been removed.

{{SD warn-needed}} is used to remind editors that when placing a speedy delete tag it is a good idea to notify the creator of the article involved that it has been tagged.

Both templates were discussed in earlier threads on this page.

I have tested both templates in my user space before moving them to template space. I expect that they will be most useful to people patroling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I hope people find them useful. DES (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD I6 (fair-use rationales)

I'm not sure where this conversation initially took place, so please direct me to the proper place if this isn't it. I don't think the 4 May 2006 deadline is necessary anymore. In practice, images uploaded before that are just tagged with {{non-free use disputed}} for the same reason, and usually end up deleted in the same timeframe. There's no reason to duplicate process here, so the deadline should no longer apply. Thoughts? (ESkog)(Talk) 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove my user page and end my account

I wish to no longer be associated with Wikipedia; remove my user and talk pages immediately. Carajou 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the place to make such a request. You could explain your request by putting {{db}} on the pages. EVula // talk // // 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

trivial A7s and what else to call hem

We do have to consider dividing A7 between the trivial nonsense that can be gotten rid of quickly, and anything which might possibly be taken more serious--personally, I think the first approach is to use a G1 db-nonsense or G2 db-test on the sort of one sentence junk from hopelessly nn high school students and the like. I think giving them a a7 notice makes them thin k they are being taken seriously, and by far the better course is to dismiss them out of hand--instead of saying we don't thing you're notable enough, just saying we know it's stupid play. When someone writes "my girlfriend kim is beautiful" and we say "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". they're probably laughing at us.

Then we can think what to do about the other half--that'll be a little harder . DGG 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Please remember that G1 Nonsense is restricted to patent nonsense which is ratehr more limited than many suppose. A7 was inveted for precisely this kind of thing, if it didn't exist there would be IMO no justification for A7 at all. DES (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you must use a different criterion, A3 would also apply to "my girlfriend Kim is beautiful". -Amarkov moo! 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you feel really stupid giving them an A7 notice and taking them seriously, you could always go for another option like {{uw-creation2}}. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 18:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
And so I do if they bother to look. A3 sounds good. The other point is that deleting this sort of stuff takes very little time, and deleting a more complicated and longer but still possible speedy is another matter--if it sounds in any way conceivably plausible one ought to check Google etc, or look at user contributions, so it would help to be able to sort them out. (and make errors a little less likely). 04:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits

Everytime I edit a page of Ana Johnsson, whether it's an album or single, a message comes automatically asking for a speedy deletion, while I haven't written anything about it nor emptied the article.... Anyone knows what's going on with this? -- Luigi-ish 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an edit to the album info box template, placing a speedy delete tag on that template, and thus on every page that uses it. The tag has been removed, but it affects the articles until they are edited and re-saved -- any edit at all, even one that changes nothing, will do. DES (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of no context

What does it mean by "no context"? I've seen some very short articles which simply state a basic definition of the subject in a single sentence without explaining it further. Do those have enough context? I'm a bit confused when I look through the list of "dead end pages". Can someone clarify please? Thanks in advance.--Kylohk 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It means that you don't know from the information given enough to do research to expand the article. For example, if the article is about someone with a fairly common name (like John Smith) and the article says, "John Smith is an author", that isn't enough information to even begin trying to do research to find out who he is. There have been thousands of people named John Smith and certainly more than one of them authored a book. But if the article says, "John Smith is an author of children's books, including the award-winning Blah blah blah blah", that gives you a starting point and provides sufficient context to do research to expand the article. --BigDT 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. "XYZ is a novel by Q.R. Author" has virtually no content at all, but if the title/author combo is pretty much unique, it has pleanty of context. If you can tell what the article is about enough to have a fair idea where to find more info, there is context. If that is hopeless, thre is no context. DES (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I far too often see sub-stubs with very little content being speedy-tagged as having no context, where there is all the context anyone needs. DES (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"No context" would be closer to "The Green House is a book with a ghost in it." >Radiant< 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Particularly if there are multiple books by the same title, so a simple amazon or google search will not reliabely give more info on the book that is the subject of the "article". DES (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of G4

When does an article meet criterion G4 (a recreation of content deleted after an XfD discussion)? The reason I am asking this is the article Franchise Circle. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franchise Circle was closed early, when the article was speedied per A7. The article has since been recreated. Does it qualify for G4 or not? The article may obviously still be deleted via A7, ofcourse. AecisBrievenbus 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure G4 only applies to pages which are an exact repost of the one which has been through the XFD process. This diff's edit summary seems to confirm that, as does the wording on {{uw-repost}} ("If you can indicate how {{{1}}} is different from the previously posted material...") - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But obviously, a very small rewording, or other minor edit to the page, is gaming the system and the article will be speedied anyway. --ais523 10:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In this particular case, the article seems substantially expanded, but it reads rather doubtful to me so I'll throw it on AFD once more. >Radiant< 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up is mostly for future reference. A substantial number of AFDs are closed early after a speedy deletion. Those article weren't deleted per WP:AFD, but per WP:CSD. So does G4 apply in such cases? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Either open a new AFD discussion, or retag it with the former speedy criterion if it still fits. G4 seems inappropriate when the discussion is short-circuited, and is only there to prevent the gaming discussed above; the page wasn't actually deleted according to the XFD discussion, after all. -- nae'blis 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What about cases where the speedy deletion of an article was upheld in Deletion review? I'm in discussion with Corvus cornix (talk · contribs) over the speedy deletion, recreation and current AFD on Whyville. It was deleted by AQu01rius (talk · contribs) on May 15. The deletion was more or less upheld in Deletion review; the request was rejected but the deletion itself was neither endorsed nor overruled. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16. My take is that it doesn't qualify for G4, since no XfD discussion took place. Any thoughts? Note: this might be some cross-posting, since Corvus cornix has raised this matter at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Whyville. AecisBrievenbus 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If we don't allow db-recreated to be used for speedy deletions which have been upheld at DRV, what's the point of having DRV? So what if a speedy is upheld, if the user just recreates the article and it's forced to go to AFD to get deleted? Corvus cornix 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Deletion review never endorsed this particular speedy deletion. It didn't speak out on this deletion, it didn't consider the request for deletion review. If an A7 article gets recreated and recreated and recreated, the page can be protected. If it continues, the user may be blocked. There are a lot of ways to prevent recreation sprees. But G4 is not one of them. AecisBrievenbus 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tags on templates

I have seen several cases, recently, where a template is tagged with a DB tag, thus putting all pages that transcude the template into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. This is usually a bad thing. Perhaps the project page should include a warning that tagging tempaltes currently being transcluded will have this effect, which may be undesireable. DES (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The projetc page already tells people to noinclude the tag for templates. Kusma (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
So it does. obviously some people miss this. Is there anythign practical that can be done to help? in at least one case, a generic {{db}} was used, not any of the more specific tempaltes (and IMO it was an invalid tagging anyway). DES (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably there's not much we can do except tell the editor who tagged the template not to do it again; a large warning would probably violate WP:BEANS... Kusma (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking, could parser functions be used so that if (and only if) a DB tag is placed on a page in template space, a big red warning appeared about the use of noinclude? legit tgging of tempaltes for speedy is rare, after all, and the people who do this improperly don't read the CSD page in detail anyway. I'm thinking of the same sort of thing that {{prod}} does if you forget to subst it. DES (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's possible. The code would be something like {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template|BIG ANGRY MESSAGE}}.-- Visviva 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions on Speedy Delete Process

I just discovered that an article I had created, Latin American subaltern studies, had been nominated and processed for speedy deletion within three hours. It's true that the article was just a stub. But here are a couple of notes regarding the process:

  1. If a bot hadn't notified me of the nomination I would not have been informed.
  2. The deletion itself didnt' show in my watchlist.
  3. I have apparently no way of finding out either who nominated or who deleted the article.

It seems obvious to me that the editor or adminstrator here was being over-eager, at best. They lacked the courtesy to check the page history or my own contributions and then to raise their queries with me or at least put in a "prod." What worries me is less the fact that they got carried away than that I have no avenue to respond to the process, to know to whom I should respond, and indeed that everything almost took place almost un-noticed, if it weren't for a third-party bot. All this seems rather problematic to me. --Jbmurray 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can find out the admin who carried out the deletion by looking at the logs, which is a link on the page that comes up when you click the redlink, or at the top of the history page for an existing article[16].
Thanks, that's very helpful. I saw that the history had been wiped, but didn't know about the logs. I've now been able at least to leave messages on the relevant adminsitrators' talk pages. --Jbmurray 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

removing speedy

The statement that "anyone" can remove a speedy tag was removes, on the basis that it shouldn't just be by a whim. That point is well taken, but Ido not think that removing it altogether had consensus, and nonetheless a statement is needed that admins and nonadmins both--anyone but the author--can remove a tag--I have therefore restored it pending discussion.

It would be useful to say what follows this, if we can agree. What I would like to say that if the original speedy placer disagrees, and if the tag was removed with some degree of reason, the next step is AfD, not another speedy.

I'd also like to specify what follows a hangon tag, and how much time should be allowed, and what to do if the copyvio permission takes longer than expected. I am not sure about what should be said here, however. DGG 04:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps we need to keep the speedy deletes to non-controversial matters. Certain things should qualify regardless, no questions. Often, I think a few of the CSD fall into a gray area. Obviously, editors who post the db feel the article is above repair, but given the proper motivation, the author might not feel that way. As far as I can tell, and this is just my opinion, G11 and 12 can contain some gray area, as they're not concisely defined. Thinking of examples where G11 and 12 are obvious isn't hard. Thinking of examples where there might be some controversy is a different story. Perhaps we should attach a caution note, with some extended time to certain CSD? A1, A7 also come to mind. I'm not sure if there are any other CSD that might even be controversial enough to warrant a removal. In summary, what I'm suggesting is we make the existing CSD more bulletproof, and remain a speedy delete, and provide a clear line when AfD should be used instead. -wizzard2k (CTD) 06:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the thing is that while anyone can remove a speedy tag, doing so does not in fact prevent the article from being speedied if it meets the criteria. >Radiant< 09:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed; it's speedy deletion, meaning an admin can delete it at any time without the need for any process. Tagging is only for non-admins to bring things to the attention of admins, or admins to bring it to the attention of other admins if they want a second opinion. The exception is images, for historical reasons only (in the past it wasn't possible to undelete images; that should really be changed now). --bainer (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea for almost every deletion to have at least two opnions. Thus, except in cases of obvious blatent vandalism (or houskeeping, for stuff like fixing C&P moves), I never speedy-delete a page unless some other editor has tagged it, instead I will tag for anothe admin. i promised this in my RfAS and I have stuck to it. i urge othe admins to strongly consider doign likewise. DES (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I will tag some speedies for a second opinion, but most of the ones I opt to deal with are extremely clear-cut (attack pages and nonsense). I respect your decision to be more cautious, but I don't think it should necessarily become standard practice. -- nae'blis 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with removing the exception for images; don't agree with taking out the language explaining that anyone except the author can remove tags. -- nae'blis 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with Naeblis about the articles he is talking about, but for anything just a little less obvious, I frankly do not altogether feel comfortable about relying on any single person, including myself. I know I occasionally don't see everything, and sometimes make a careless mistake. If anyone were to say he makes no mistakes, I'd ask him how he knows if nobody reviews his actions. What we have not succeeded in doing , is finding a way to word it that makes the distinction between what any one admin can safely do singlehanded, and the others. DGG 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

I strongly disagree with this edit and I wish it had been discussed in advance. i will probably be reverting parts of it. I see that soem parts have already been reverted. Specifically:

  1. I think that the phrase "If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion, another process should be used instead." is important and should remain in the policy page.
  2. I like the phrase " Don't delete if you simply don't understand the assertion of importance or significance; delete only if you know that there is none." and I don't see why it was removed. I ahve seen a number of speedy tags and some deltions that contained what I think were clear assertions of significance.
  3. I think the wording "The "speedy deletion" policy specifies the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate" is important to make it clear that editors, including admins, can't simply make up their own new speedy delte criteria, an new or significantly changed CSD must have consensus before it is used. DES (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the first point. If a page has survived an XfD, but falls into speedy deletion criteria, I do not see why it can't be speedy deleted. I think what you want to say is that it is not an A7, as notability is presumably asserted. Tizio 14:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No I mean more than that. Which speedy criteria could a page that survived a valid XfD "fall into". If it is vandalized, it should be reverted, not deleted, so it can't be patent nonsense, no content, nor empty, as a version that was any of these wouldn't survive an XfD.A Copy vio could be discovered, yes, that is an explicit exception. Housekeeping to fix a C&P move could be an exception also, but that isn't really speedy deletion. Office actions might still occur but they are rare. What else? If XfD kept it, even if it is later revealed that a banned user's sock was the original creator, i don't think it should be deleted. Author requests shouldn't apply after an XfD. After an XfD version that was kept can't be considered blatant advertising, or it wouldn't have been kept, and if later versions are, they should be reverted, not kept. R1 could I suppose eventually apply. So could I1 or I8, the other I types I cant see how they could apply after an IfD result of keep. I also don't see how U1 could apply if there was a prior keep result. DES (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Then, "survived XfD" = "not speedy candidate" is instruction creep. If an XfD survivor cannot meet a speedy criteria, why having a rule about it. On the other hand, an article may survive a notability-grounded AfD while still being blatant advertisement, etc. The CSD are for articles that "can be unilaterally deleted", so consensus obtained in whatever venues is irrelevant. Tizio 16:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If articles are passing AFD (there's no such thing as a "notability-grounded AFD") and are still blatant advertisements, there's either enough interest to warrant cleaning up the article, or AFD is broken beyond what I can believe. Only legal-ramification speedies (previously unknown copyright infringement, for example) should trump XFD discussions. -- nae'blis 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
By "notability-grounded AFD" I mean an AfD where the nominator starts with "non-notable, does not pass [insert notability guideline here]". I don't know if they have a better name. If an article is still blatant advertisement after AfD, that proves that there is not enough interest in cleaning it up. Tizio 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
G12 is one of those notoriously vague criterion; remember the cookie caper? I would absolutely support a second AFD if the article maintains an unusable/unencyclopedic state but using CSD as an end-run around consensus at AFD seems sketchy to me. If people are still closing AFDs as keeps when the article has not at least started to improve on the concerns raised, that's a separate problem (in my view), but I thought we were mostly over that sort of "it's fixable someday" mentality. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. -- nae'blis 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
We should not over-ride consensus by individual personal action. We don't in editing, and we shouldn't in deletion. If something is deleted in XfD, it shouldn't be re-created without new evidence or Deletion Review--we already have that rule, and we need it. If something is kept, it shouldn't be deleted without another community discussion, or if something new is discovered such as copyvio or a duplicate. DGG 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If consensus established that a specific version of an article should be kept, despite it satisfying speedy deletion criteria, that seems to say that it's an exception to the rule, as consensus is the overriding guiding principle. An unspeediable article cannot become speediable, because of the "revert if you can" rule. This leaves only cases where significant new information that would undoubtedly reverse all the "Keep" votes comes to light, such as copyvio or duplicate articles.
I agree with all the restored statements.Dcoetzee 08:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for a new CSD candidate

I am suggesting a new CSD candidate: Article about a video game and/or video game content that does not assert the importance or signifigance of the subject. In my experiences patrolling, I have come across a few articles that would fall under this criteria, yet I am forced to either tag them as patent nonsense, which is untrue for most of these articles; very short articles without context, which again most do not fall under or ProD them, which the majority will be contested, thus bringing them up to AfD. By expanding CSD for this candidate, it should help reduce the amount of AfDs that are brought up. Examples of articles that would fall under this category: Teru-Sama, Monster Hunt, List of Monster Hunter Monsters(deleted under AfD, but would have fallen under this criteria) and List of Spectrobes(again, deleted under AfD, but would have fallen under this criteria). SuperDT 05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How often does it turn up? I rarely see them during my patrols, and I'm automatically wary of adding to the already-too-subjective A7 criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In the past two days, doing about 2 hours of newpage/randompage patrolling a day, I can count four articles off the top of my head that I believe would fall under this criteria: Teru-Sama, Monster Hunt, Adventurers Guild and Naruto: Battle of Death (Now deleted under patent nonsense, which it really was not). If this is not enough to warrant a change in criteria, I completely understand. SuperDT 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Four really isn't much of anything, really. At least in my opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In my experience, such articles are frequently stubs about minor characters, locations, or items from some video game. If these are sub-trivial, that can usually be solved by redirecting them to the game in question. >Radiant< 07:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd much rather see these become redirects to list/aggregate pages than be speedied. This seems overly narrow, and any 'fictional character stub' criterion is going to be WAY too subjective for my liking. -- nae'blis 14:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I would be very much opposed to any broadening of the criteria for speedy until we can deal with the present overuse. And I too would very much encourage redirection--character names are appropriate as redirects. DGG 14:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD I2 split

Have we considered a split of CSD I2 before?

  • Corrupt or empty image. Before deleting this type of image, verify that the MediaWiki engine cannot read it by previewing a resized thumbnail of it. This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images.

Here is the template: Template:Db-noimage. I find that editors worry the actual image is going to be deleted as "missing or corrupt" when it is marked as CSD I2 because it is an empty description page for a Commons image. I'd like to reduce some of the worry and questions about the deletions when they should be fairly uncontroversial deletions. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's a consensus to delete keep description pages for commons images (last I looked it was up in the air), why not just write that in as an exception to I2? -- nae'blis 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision of G10

I'd like to suggest a revision of G10 that I feel makes it less restrictive and more accurate of actual practice. The current version reads:

10. Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.

My proposed revision is:

10. Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes any page which cannot conform to the Biography of Living Persons policy.

I would not make such a change myself without support, so I'm placing it here first for comments. Thanks. --InkSplotch 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the decision that a page cannot conform to BLP rest in an AfD discussion rather than the hands of individual administrators. --Iamunknown 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The wording's a bit confusing, as it implies that all articles not meeting BLP standards are classified as attack pages. If someone wrote "John Q. Doe is the best person in the world", this wouldn't meet BLP standards either as it's still not written from NPOV, but can hardly be called an attack. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
They key is "cannot conform", as in, if a page could be made to conform it wouldn't be a speedy candidate. But if there's no way it could be made to conform to BLP, it could be. --InkSplotch 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Normally I'd say CSDs should be applied with caution, but you're right in that this one reflects actual practice for quite good reason - David Gerard 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This would be a welcome improvement, but may need some clearer wording. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone help me out...I'm not understanding the improvement. Obviously just because we can speedy an article which could be made to conform to NPOV with little work doesn't mean we have to, even under the current wording. If the article is unsourced and negative, deleting it forces a fresh start and gets anything possibly libelous out of the page history. And what would it mean "cannot" conform? That there is no way to say something NPOV about the person? I don't understand when that would be the case. So far, I prefer the current wording. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What I'm trying to get away from is a strict interpretation of "attack page." Several articles which have gone through recent deletion have been marked as BLP violations that are not pure attack pages, but still violate the protections to living persons that BLP is trying to protect. I'm not sure I could explain better without pointing you to AFD and DRV. --InkSplotch 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, several articles have been recently deleted because people simply objected to their content, and used BLP as an excuse. Some editors are far too quick to characterize articles as violating BLP. Unlearned hand 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Here's another stab at it...I'm still not sure, though. --InkSplotch 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

10. Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes any page which cannot be made to conform to Biography of Living Persons policy.

Feel free to point me in the direction of a relevant AfD or DRV. I'm still not understanding the "cannot" business. Under what circumstances could an article about a person not be written from an NPOV? NickelShoe (Talk) 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
BLP demands good sourcing, too, so if there aren't good sources, it can't meet BLP. -Amarkov moo! 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember we have A7 for these cases as well. G10 still specifies an "attack page", and I'm still unclear as to how you can have a biography which is classifiable as an attack page which isn't defamatory and negative in tone, which seems to be what you're trying to encompass with the new wording. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 04:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There are attack pages on other things than people. Schools, for example. I think the present wording is fine. The BLP part is implicit--the wording is pre-BLP policy, but it still fits. DGG 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the clock!

I just left the following message on my User Talk page after I got a robot msg on an SD, but want to share it with the SD community:

"Just for the record, even though I'm talking to a robot, I want to say that I don't oppose the deletion of that article but I consider it absolutely pathetic that I was given notice during sleep time (07:43 local time) and even though I'm answering this barely one hour later and early in the morning (9:03 local time), the article is already deleted by an admin. If I wanted to halt the process, I couldn't because it was my fault that I was sleeping and didn't check this page for one hour. Pathetic."

Sorry about the strong word. --maf (talk-cont) 08:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize, but it's always sleep time somewhere in the world... -- Visviva 08:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Until recently you might well never have gotten any notice, only found that the arricle was gone when you noticed a red link, and had to check the deletion log to find out why it had been deleted, if you knew how. Speedy deletion means "deletable on sight" that is, without delay or warning in most cases. Notices are a courtesy so that you can find out what happened and why -- if it happens that you are in time to contest a speedy tag, fine, but there is no guarenteed right to do so. Any speedy can be reveiwed at Deletion review if you think it was imporper, or better, you can ask the deelting admin to reconsider if you have a good reason. This is one reaosn why the speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be narrow and adhered to pretty strictly -- if an admin is unsure that an article warrents deletion without time for discussion, then s/he should use {{prod}} instead. DES (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Template suggestion

The current template is a very good design but could be improved by adding Image:Keep tidy.svg:

Keep tidy.svgThis page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: {{{1}}}

If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add (in addition to the speedy deletion template):


to the top of this page below this tag, and then explain why you believe this wikipedia talk page should not be deleted on this talk page.

This will alert administrators to your intention, and should permit you the time to write your explanation.

Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion.

I would like to gain consensus before making this change. It's a minor, albeit cosmetic one, but it could work. Thanks, --SunStar Net talk 09:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a person throwing rubbish into a garbage bin. It's an offense magnet.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree, the suggestion is just biting the newbies. Kusma (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've withdrawn this idea, it doesn't seem feasible. I was wrong, I admit. --SunStar Net talk 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Funny, the folks in Finnish Wikipedia don't seem to think so... =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Double Redirect

Is the sole fact that an article is a Double Redirect grounds for speedily deleting it? I can accept that it may be grounds for deleting, but cmon, speedy deleting? We can't let Deletionists determine the Criteria for deletion. Mathiastck 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems unlikely unless it falls under the general housekeeping criterion. Usually double redirects are fixed; what particular redirect are you referring to in this case? -- nae'blis 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely if article 1 redirects to article 2 which redirects to article 3 then article 1 can just be fixed so that it redirects to article 3 as well. And if article 3 doesn't exist then they both get speedied under R1. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think even a deletionist would argue against merely fixing the redirect. EVula // talk // // 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Android Mouse Bot 2

People do not need to be informed about speedy deletions. Speedy deletions are not controversial, that is the whole point. This bot is doing nothing but cluttering up talk pages with huge warnings and getting people scared for no reason. By the time most people see the warning the page in question has already been deleted. This bot is useless and should be disabled. shoeofdeath 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If someone doesn't get an explanation of why their page was deleted, they'll just recreate it or get pissed off (that isn't to say that both won't happen). We shouldn't bite the newbies. EVula // talk // // 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The SD process and the bot msg are not in sync. The SD admins need to agree to either a) keep the {{hangon}} reference but not delete the article less than 24 hours after being tagged for SD (to allow me to sleep at night); or b) rm the {{hangon}} reference from the bot msg and delete on sight. The way it is now, to pretend to give a chance for hangon, does not work. --maf (talk-cont) 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the bot, the reference to {{hangon}} is in all the standard notification templates that editors are encouraged by the text of the various db templates to put on the talk pages of article creators. DES (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Speedy" is not defined as "no less than 24 hours", and is most certainly not contingent on someone's sleep schedule. I've deleted too many articles that in no way deserved a 24 hour "notice period" to think this is a good idea. EVula // talk // // 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I requested the bot be created, and i am very glad that it is doing what it is doing. Basically it is merely automating a task that editors are always requested (by the wording of the various db templates) to perform, but IMO far too many omit. The notifications server several useful purposes. When people create invalid articles that should be speedy deleted, because they don't know wikipedia polices, the notice helps indicate what the problem was and what happened to the article. When persistent spammers or Vandals recreate articles, the notices can make it easier for editors to notice that early and deal with it. If a speedy tag is debatable or invalid, it helps let a user know how to challenge the speedy properly (and I have responded to many "hangon" tags by removing the speedy tag and notifying the tagger, often together with improving the article so hangon does work in a good many cases). If an article gets deleted before the person notified can challenge the deletion, it is always possible to ask the deleting admin to reconsider, and if s/he declines, to take the matter to deletion review. While most speedys are perfectly valid, IMO, a fair number are at least debatable, and this can help people learn how to debate them rationally, rather than just recreating in place, to no one's benefit. DES (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You are overestimating the number of "debatable" speedy deletions. Most are noncontroversial and a huge number are articles that were not created by newbies. I agree with you that this bot does some good in the cases where the creator of the article disagrees with its speedy deletion. This is by far the exception, though, and the majority of the warnings given by this thing are doing absolutely nothing but confusing regular users with a huge graphic and bold text. At first I thought this bot was relatively harmless (and useless) but now I am convinced that it is actually doing much more harm than good. shoeofdeath 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a great idea. We'll be able to keep a lot more newbies editing. Shoeofdeath, after being an admin for a long time and going through CSD a lot... I'm sorry, but I don't have a damn clue what you're talking about. Notifying the author can only hlp in about 90% of cases and there are a lot of controversial ones, especially from the perspective of the people who create the articles. Grandmasterka 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say it helps in more like 10% of cases. I am against page creation for brand new users anyway but that is another issue altogether. I am obviously not going to win this fight and am not going to argue about it anymore. In any case I would strongly suggest that the warnings given by this bot be toned down and be made more discrete, at least in blatantly noncontroversial deletions such as redirects or other housekeeping. shoeofdeath 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
How can you say that leaving the bot msg AND deleting on sight are good for the author? Where will the author put the {{hangon}} if the article's already gone? I don't understand how one admin says that hangons solve a lot of problems, and another admin likes to shoot on sight. Admins, get in sync and adjust bot or process one way or the other. --maf (talk-cont) 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Honestly? Most of the articles I seen in CAT:CSD are absolute shit, and no amount of {{hangon}} placement will change that. EVula // talk // // 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If the article's creator disagrees with the deletion, s/he can use hangon if deletion hasn't happened yet. If the creator or anyone else disagrees after the deletion has occured, that person can ask the deleting admin to reconsider (link found in the [ deletion log), or take the matter to deletion reveiw, where there are instructions about how to handle contested speedy deletions. DES (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to User:Shoeofdeath, I agree that most speedy deletions are clearly proper. Many are by relatively new editors, many are not, but many of those by not so new editors were still good-faith creations by editors who can profit by being informed exactly why the article was speedy deleted. I think that in the vast majority of cases notices are likely to be helpful -- only in the case of the willful and persistent vandal are the of no use to the editor being notified, and there they can help clue-in others that this is such a vandal. I agree that notices for G6 housekeeping are of little use, because those deletions are normally undone promptly. Perhaps notices for deletions of redirects without targets are unneeded, but in some cases the redirect sits on a history that an editor will want preserved, and i don't see how a bot can tell when this is the case. And I really don't see what harm the notices do even when they are not needed. DES (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I note that in this edit User:Shoeofdeath removed a bot-created notice of a speedy deletion from the talk page of a user, which user expressed himself as displeased by both the deletion and the removal of the notice. If a major reason why User:Shoeofdeath dislikes the notices is because it leads to editors complaining about his actions, then perhaps he should think twice about those actions, although of course many complaints about speedy deletions are not justified. DES (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed such warnings on several other occasions and have been thanked for it. Please note that I posted here before your example; this has nothing to do with my opposition to this bot. shoeofdeath 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, i accept your statement. I had noted that on several occasions when a complaint was made on two talk pages when refering to the same complaint about a speedy tag you had placed, you siad something to the effect that the complaint wouldn't have occured had the bot not been active. You can perhaps understand how I got the impression i did. DES (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, although "several occasions" was actually only one time. People are overly protective of any pages they create, even useless redirects. Again, I see that there is general consensus to keep this bot and understand why it exists. Thank you for your detailed responses. shoeofdeath 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
On review i find that there were such comments in only two, not "several" edits, and that both refered to the same notice, making this really only one "occasion". My apologies for the inaccuracy, it was a failure of memory. DES (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text addition to A2

I would like to propose the addition of some text to A2 to clarify things. The text would be "All articles in a non-english language that do not meet this criteria (and are not clearly copyvios or spam), should be listed at Pages Needing Translation (PNT) for review and possible translation." The reason for this is concern that has been brought up at PNT that too many articles are getting speedied without the needed review and consideration for translation. The way the process is supposed to work is that such articles are listed at PNT, and if nothing is done in 2 weeks, they get AfD, unless it is determined that they are copyvios or spam, inwhich case they are speedied. I believe that the problem is that many of the good folks who do NP patrolling - and even some admins who work the CSD mop closet, are simply unaware of the PNT project, and unaware that it is where such articles should be listed, and it is my hope that by adding this bit of text, a bit of education will be accomplished. Comments? Flaming darts? AKRadecki 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but rather than "and are not clearly copyvios or spam", i would just say "and do not meet any other criteria for speedy deletion". - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 09:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No objections, so added amalgum of my original proposal as modified by Zeibura. AKRadecki 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of C1

Criterion C1 currently states:

Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories. This does not apply to categories being discussed on WP:CFD or WP:SFD, or disambiguation categories. If the category isn't relatively new, it possibly contained articles earlier, and deeper investigation is needed.

I interpret "whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories" to mean that any category whose description page has contained content other than parent category links at some point is not speedyable under this criterion – and that categories which have never had a description are. I've always followed it this way, but it seems a little odd and I believe it is routinely ignored, so is it actually necessary? The part about CfD doesn't entirely make sense either, as it would seem to disallow speedy closures, which certainly happen – Gurch 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be changed to reflect/clarify what is done (correctly, I think) in practice. It should be changed to something like "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days). This does not apply to disambiguation categories. Before deleting, make sure that the category did not become empty due to vandalism or by other inappropriate means". The whole part about "whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories" doesn't really make sense. That would imply someone could get around the speedy criteria by simply typing a letter as the category description. The CFD part should also be removed as confusing, as speedy closes happen (appropriately) all the time. VegaDark (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Empty categories are those that have no pages that link to them (none listed). This does not mean categories that are blank, but have pages listed within them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Flagging articles that might need deletion or extreme tidying up

Is there a way to flag up articles that might need deletion or massive tidying up, but which have some potential. Something like the speedy deletion tags, but different (ie. more urgent and more easily tackled) from the "needs cleaning up" tags? The article in question is social perception. Where is the best place to start with this kind of "donated academic material"? Carcharoth 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't tag it for deletion. If it were blatantly an essay, I'd use proposed deletion. Also I tend to google badly formatted material to see if it's been copy-pasted from somewhere, but in this case it doesn't seem to be, plus it cites sources. I've cleaned this article up a bit, which is the approach I'd recommend for these types, rather than just deleting it. If you can't be bothered to do any work on it, just go for blue box overkill.
To avoid confusion, the original version Carcharoth refers to is here. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 06:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) You really cleaned that one up! I picked CSD as one of several talk pages where I might get a quick response, but didn't expect it to be this quick! For next time though, is there a central place for "articles with potential" where I contact editors who specialise in rescuing articles under titles that obviously have encyclopedic potential? The other tips are helpful as well. I'll bear those in mind next time. Carcharoth 09:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You lookin' for Wikipedia:Cleanup? It seems that Wikipedia:Extreme cleanup is red. Splash - tk 13:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. In case anyone was wondering where I found that article, it was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized, in the list for April 2007. Carcharoth 09:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I once drafted User:DESiegel/urgent cleanup. If anyone wants to move this to template space and start using it, be my guest. I never got consensus and dropped the matter. DES (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely start using this. There does need to be an alternative to {{cleanup}}, which has no value at all. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see what the point would be, unless this is an end-run around the rejected criterion for unsourced articles. There is no deadline, so what makes it so 'urgent'? Cleanup tasks are already being tackled in reverse order now that the templates are dated, and anyone can work on any article at any time. -- nae'blis 16:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's the line between "this article needs a bit of formatting" and "this article is barely legible due to lack of formatting, but looks like it may contain some useful content". - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sofixit. I'm so tired of people slapping tags on articles when for a few moments' more time, they could actually fix the "nearly illegible" formatting. Are we writing an encyclopedia or playing Whack-a-Mole?? -- nae'blis 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Zeibura, one of the reasons why {{cleanup}} takes so long is that there are so many articles to clean up. Creating {{urgent cleanup}} will be no different if Category:Articles in urgent need of cleanup becomes populated with hundreds/thousands of articles. Please let's not additionally complicate our maintenance categories system. If it were a new template specifying a certain type of cleanup ... I might support it. But this I just can't. If a non-speedyable article needs urgent cleanup for legal/ethical reasons (e.g., it's a BLP that contains potentially libelous material), then revert it to a better version, remove the problematic content, or bring it up at the BLP noticeboard. I really can't see any other case that would require "urgent" cleanup. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, "urgent" is perhaps the wrong term to be using. My main issue with cleanup is that I don't think it would be as full as it is if the specific maintenance templates were used more often instead of {{cleanup}}. I believe {{cleanup}} should be reserved for cases where loads of specific tags would need to be used to address multiple problems, but I know it's far too unrealistic to expect that to happen. I guess "urgent cleanup" would be used for this purpose, but I sympathise with your point about the category becoming just as full and rendering the template equally meaningless - it probably would happen eventually. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanding A7 to films and videos

Not to beat a dead horse, but I continually see material being brought up at AfD with basically immediate deletion, but which cannot be speedied, because it's not on the list - specifically, films and videos, such as Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge. Any film which is notable enough for inclusion will, someone, assert some degree of notability - i.e. by listing awards, receipts, association with famous actors/directors, etc. This would also get rid of the horrible YouTube fan videos that keep showing up, but cannot currently be speedied. I feel this is specific, and targeted enough not to adversely affect the encyclopedia outside the scope of what it is supposed to get rid of. --Haemo 09:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at AfD in a while. Would you be able to list previous deletion discussions on such films to show whether it really is a problem. How many "non-notable films" in the last year are we talking about? 10? 50? 100? 200? Carcharoth 09:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I could dig through this - give me a little while. --Haemo 13:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I did to May 7th, since it was taking forever, and I found 7 articles which could be speedied under my proposed change (That's around 125, on average, per year) - in total, I counted 14 film/video deletion debates; this means half of them could have never consumed the communities time, or effort.
  1. Better Luck Yesterday - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Luck Yesterday
  2. Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge
  3. The Backpack (Short Film) - [17] - also note that this was improperly speedied per criterion A7, as "web content" - even though criteria A7 is specific only to websites.
  4. Life Mein Kabhie Kabhiee - [18]
  5. Professor Plum (film) - [19]
  6. The_Assassinator - [20] - There was a "hold on the speedy" on this article; which is odd, since it's not speediable anyways.
  7. The Neighbor (TV series) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Neighbor (TV series) - yet another A7 speedy, which is currently invalid
There are some things to note:
  • First of all, as some entries on the list have shown, people are de facto exercising this already. In fact, the this template]directly contradicts WP:CSD in its scope. It only makes sense to formalize this. --Haemo 13:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The answer is to fix the template in this case. Even you're saying 125 on average per year - that's a drop in the bucket, there's absolutely no need to expand it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? That's half of all the film related material I counted - and if you re-write that template to exclude Youtube videos, as the current guidelines mandate, you're going to be seeing a lot more of these AfD's in the near future. --Haemo 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, these should be discussed individually, especially with YouTube becoming a legitimate mainstream content provider. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - I guess if it's a minor problem, then it's not really worth the fuss, after all. I wasn't aware of the scope needed for a change to be made. --Haemo 14:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not a bad idea per se, you should try asking for more feedback on the village pump. There are a handful of people on this talk page who automatically object to any additions to the SD criteria, so this talk page gives a rather lopsided view of what the community thinks. >Radiant< 12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not yet one of the handful of CSD talk page regulars, but I also object to this proposed criterion for now. First, this proposal vastly overestimates the quality of articles on films. Most film stubs, even if they're about a notable film, do not state much beyond "X was a 2007 film. Here's the plot ...". Second, if this criterion would apply only to about 125 articles per year ... it's probably not worth it. Just another opinion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I object to the expansion because I'm not sure what a "claim of importance or significance" is supposed to be for a film or video, and I'm not sure those claims would always find their way into legitimate stubs people might start. If it had a cast list with a bunch of blue-linked names I didn't recognize, would that be enough? Would I have to look through those linked pages to see if those are legitimate notable actors or part of a walled garden? What about having a release date, or a blue-linked company backing the film that I don't recognize? Some articles on legit subjects may make some clear & direct claims (ie some critic may be quoted as giving the film some kind of superlative) but the ones that really matter are indirect claims. (I actually have exactly the same trouble with the "company" category, but I accept that one because we need it to help fight those using Wikipedia for promotion). Mangojuicetalk 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be almost exactly what I came here to propose, so if no one minds, I'm going to slightly expand the suggestion. Could A7 be expanded to include fanfiction in general, regardless of genre? It came up in this AfD when I was asked why I didn't just speedy the article. I'm not sure whether it would fit under A7 now, as there's an external link with exactly the same content, but at the time, that link was as much in progress as the page, so I'm honestly not sure where it was added first, or if that has any relevance to the appropriateness of using A7. Including fanfiction would certainly eliminate that confusion. -Bbik 02:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Fanfic? That is almost by definition self-promotion for non-notable copyvios. Wikipedia is not If memory serves me right, the only reason why articles on made-up self-published stories and/or your homemade RPG character and so forth aren't in the CSD list is either because they don't come up all that often, or because we already do and policy hasn't caught up yet. That's different from (and less controversial than) films, though. >Radiant< 09:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, a CSD for fan fiction or characters from fanfic or from unpublished RPG games was propsoed, but failed to gain consensus. See this summery. The overall conclusion was "While most people agree that most fan fiction is not encyclopedic, it is not generally obvious from an article whether it's about fan fiction or real fiction." Note also that in a few rare cases, fan fiction has actually become notable. A classic example is "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex", but that was helped because its author is a notable published author. There are a few other examples, and i can fid cites if you really want. But it is very rare. DES (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed on looking furhter, it appears that User:Radiant! was the inital drafter of that earlier proposal to add a CSD for fanfiction, and I was one of thsoe who argued for it. How time does fly:) If such a criterion would be adopted in future, i think it should be a new, separate criterion, not an addition to A7. DES (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I searched the internet for the examples above and learned from IMDB that one of them, Life Mein Kabhie Kabhiee, is a Bollywood film by Vikram Bhatt, and we seem to have articles about all of his other films, so I don't see why that one should be any different. Looks like both of the AFD participants were Americans, so regardless the article's quality, and despite being the most recent film by an apparently "notable" director (even if it was a critical flop [21]), it probably didn't have a chance in hell Frowny.svg. The others don't seem to be listed on IMDB at all, so I'm just guessing those were amateur projects, I mean IMDB is pretty comprehensive. I've never watched a film that wasn't listed on IMDB. Have you? I guess what I'm really trying to ask is, if we are going to add or expand criteria to deal with films, would this be to arbitrary of a standard:

"It is an article about a film which makes no assertion of 'notability' and even the Internet Movie Database has no entry on it."

(read it again, it says "and", not "or") — CharlotteWebb 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability does not automatically disqualify from other CSD criteria

I have seen several articles lately that have had a spam or other non-A7 CSD removed by admins claiming that an assertion of notability precludes any speedy deletion. This is simply not the case. It doesn't matter how notable a person or group may be, spam is spam. It may preclude an A7 speedy, but if it's still a candidate for any of the other categories, it should still be speediable. DarkAudit 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, though, that 'spam' is only speedily deletable if it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". Thus there may be spammy articles which are not speedies since what they really need is either cleanup and/or an appropriate tag. There are, of course, many spammy articles that do just need to disposed of on sight. Splash - tk 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. But some admins are taking an assertion of notability to mean a complete disqualification from CSD, and that's not true. DarkAudit 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a SD tag that can be used for people like Steve Beverly, that are non-notable but have large articles b/c somebody is his friend? Stellatomailing 23:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not correct to say that notability is an exemption from other speedy criteria. But if something is demonstratably notable, it is rather unlikely that any of the speedy criteria will apply, so it should definitely be evaluated more critically. -Amarkov moo! 23:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio is a common tag for articels about otherwise notable subjects, as is blatent spam. In the latter case, though, if the subject is celarly notable a rewriute is usually better than a deletion, even if a spammy version technically qualifies, IMO. An attack page agaisnt a notable subject is obviously subject to deltion or drastic rewrite, and if the atttack is a the level of legally actionable defamation, deletion may be better. DES (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Accidental creation?

Would pages that were accidentally created, i.e. in the wrong namespace, fall into any of the current speedy deletion criteria? If not, what do we think about making it a new criteria, G13. -- kenb215 talk 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think that could be covered by either G6 (Housekeeping) or G7 (Author requests deletion), depending on who wrote it and who's trying to move it to another namespace. -Bbik 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that the page has been moved to the correct namespace, the resulting redirect could be speedily deleted per G6 or G7, as noted above, if it has no significant incoming links (these can be repaired/replaced) and no GFDL issues are involved (i.e., a copy-paste move of content did not take place). In practice, G6 has a rather wide scope when it comes to pages that are not articles, but exist simply to ensure the smooth(er) operation of the project. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on G5

If an article was created as part of behavior that got a user blocked, would it be eligible for deletion under G5? the contributions of the editors in this sockpuppet case were what caused the blocking, not after. DarkAudit 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look closely at "G5" you will notice the the prepositional phrase "while they were banned" (emphasis not mine). I'd guess this was deliberately added and intentionally emphasized in response to previous requests for "clarification". — CharlotteWebb 10:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What counts here is as follows: If the user was violating a ban by creating this page, including by using sockpuppets, then G5 applies. Otherwise, it doesn't. Od Mishehu 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Then I would believe it does not where the users above are concerned. They were blocked after they created the articles and spammed their linkspam, because they created the articles and spammed their linkspam. Most of their 'contributions' are being deleted anyway through other, more applicable procedures. DarkAudit 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's heading for deletion anyway, it doesn't matter much. On occasion, though, a banned editor makes a page that others find useful, and not always in bad faith. (I remember seeing a couple of Wikipedia essays like this). In those cases, only G5 would apply, so it had better strictly apply. Mangojuicetalk 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Which reminds me that this would also apply to topic bans. If the arbitration committee had banned me from "all articles relating to sports in the U.S. state of North Carolina", the article Serge Zwikker could be speedy deleted, even when it was not created by a sockpuppet. — CharlotteWebb 17:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)