Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 16

message: There is some confusion regarding how hoaxes are dealt with. I specifically refer to this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni DonCara which got speedily deleted under G3 as a hoax, indeed Wikipedia:Vandalism states that hoaxes are vandalism. Yet G1 states that hoaxes are not candidates for speedy deletion and WP:HOAX guidelines state that hoaxes should be dealt with through AfD. These two contradictory terms need to be cleared up. So what is it to be in regard to hoaxes, CSD G3 or AfD? --tgheretford (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is clearly and unequivocally a hoax, it has no business being in the encyclopedia. Discussion is because sometimes it is not so clear, but blatant hoaxes are vandalism or nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, there are different types of hoaxes. The ones that are speediable, to my mind, are those that are so preposterous that no ordinary person would believe them for a moment, and are manifestly vandalism or nonsense (like articles that read something like "John Q. Subject was the 35th President of the United States, and was married to Janet Jackson") or where the assertions in the article are patently preposterous and refer to future or nonexistent events ("Jane L. Subject won the women's 100-meter gold medal in the 2012 Olympics").  Other hoaxes, which require due digilence because they are plausible enough to be believed, should probably have the  template added, be vetted by editors, and dealt with via PROD or AfD. There has been at least one article that was tagged as a speedy as G1 "nonsense" because it was a hoax, but it wasn't a hoax as such, and had some legitimate references (and was meant as a serious article). I sent it to AfD, where it was eventually deleted as insufficiently verifiable, but it deserved its day in court. In addition, I think Wikipedia:Vandalism's citation of hoaxes as vandalism is more of a warning not to create hoax articles, and that doing so will lead to being blocked. --MCB 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur.  Only the most blatant of hoaxes may be speedy-deleted.  The problem is that many articles have been tagged as hoaxes but turned out to be real though very obscure topics.  Other times, they turned out to be references to works of fiction but the contributor had not yet added the necessary context.  Complicating matters, these articles are often very poorly written stubs.   As individuals, we tend to be very poor at sorting out the true hoaxes from the false positives.  On the other hand, the AFD process with its much wider audience and oversight is very effective at finding the real topics among the dross.  For a while, I made a hobby of keeping track of such deletion discussions.  There may still be a few listed at the bottom of my userpage.  Rossami (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, if only I learned to scroll down before writing... I addressed the issue of the G1-G3 discordance above in ignorance of this discussion (and, to be sure, at exorbitant length and excessively unclearly).  In any case, I do think it clear that there is an inherent contradition between G1 and G3, such that I'm not certain that a reviewer of such criteria would think it plain that even those pages which are clearly and unequivocally hoaxes should be speedied.  I can't imagine that most in the community would, the subjective qualities of clearly and unequivocally notwithstanding, disfavor speedying in such situations, but, because IAR should be at its nadir as regards speedy deletion, we ought to address the ambiguity.  Joe 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I consider deliberate hoaxes under the same category as vandalism and would speedy them if clear. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the silliest, hoaxes are not usually clear. In most cases I would be unwilling to say something was a hoax on the basis of my opinion alone. Thus the advantage of AfD for them-in most cases.DGG 20:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that that's "most" of the hoaxes here.  In sheer numbers, I'm inclined to believe that "Joe is the Kiing of the United States of Europoe" is more common than the more subtle kind. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoaxes - CSD G3 or AfD? 

message: I cleaned this up, as now-defunct criteria A6 was still on there (it is now part of G10). Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:CSD/Quick reference]] 

message: If anybody has time, I ran a report of redirects that need to be deleted under CSD-R2. (these are from a month-old dump, so they can all be deleted) --Interiot 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you add a little &redirect=no in there. —Centrx→talk • 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's finished.  It's a bit surprising how many people intentionally create one (or more) links to their user page, and recreate them after they're deleted.  It's basically a clear WP:VAIN issue after a certain point.  --Interiot 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD-R2 

message: Category criterion 1, that of empty categories, should be expanded or clarified in that an empty category does not count as content for the purposes of establishing whether another category is empty, e.g. Category:A contains Category:B and Category:C, however, B and C are both empty.  If A contains other articles or categories, it is clearly not empty, but if A contains nothing other than the two empty categories, it should be treated as empty (as a category containing only empty categories is about as useful as an empty category itself - administrativia aside).  Any thoughts?  Chris cheese whine 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think leaving it as-is reduces the likelihood of adminstrator error in deleting what s/he thought was an empty category. If subcats are empty, they can be speedied first at which point parent categories can go. If this is too slow, I suggest commenting out the category inclusion of child categories while you are marking them for CSD. All in all, I guess I'd say I weakly oppose the change to C1. BigNate37(T) 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The subcats have to be deleted separately anyway. Then it'll be empty. Deco 06:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason I proposed this was to be able to depopulate and tag an entire tree of categories, rather than wait for each to be deleted and then tag the parents, such as (hypothetical) :Category:2026 and its children :Category:2026 in sports, :Category:2026 Winter Olympic games, :Category:2026 FIFA World Cup, etc. (I would hope I don't have to explain why these need to go).  Chris cheese whine 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This situation would be relatively rare. The best approach would be simply to mention it at WP:AN, so that administrators are aware that they are dealing with a tree of empty categories. There's no need to change the criteria for this. --bainer (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ on the point of rarity, having depopulated and tagged about 100 such categories (and passed over about another 50) just today.  Chris cheese whine 07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of C1 

message: Template for notifying a user whose article I just tagged for speedy.  See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#speedy_deletion_user_page_warning_templates?.  Where is it?  and/or Is there a good reason for not having one? ∴ here…♠ 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're actually at the bottom of the speedy notices themselves. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So they are.  I'll add a further reference from Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace , thanks. ∴ here…♠ 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speedy_deletion_user_page_warning_templates? 

message: Do we need the  and  templates, which basically say "delete this now", when we have  and  to take images though our seven day queues?  The problem with these two is that every so often, the main category of speedy candidates gets flooded with images when someone — who is trying to be helpful — goes through through the week-old subcategories of :Category:Images with unknown source or :Category:Orphaned fairuse images and retags the images for immediate deletion. ×Meegs 18:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also prefer to use the 7 day category based system that most of the images go through (and delete these). I have notified a few users who did this that after 7 days we know they should be deleted without tagging them as speedy, and every time they were very nice and understood, but each time it seems like new people stumble on that idea independently. As far as the initial tagging I think it's always better to give the uploader/interested parties the normal 7 days by using  etc. - cohesion 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Technicaly they have some use for when a cat gets acidentaly removed or they fall out of the system in some other way but that is about it.Geni 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the dated ones can work in those cases too, either with a harmless additional 7 days wait or without (if you manually enter last week's date).  I don't think it's worth keeping the templates around because they seem to attract those unnecessary mass tagging fairly frequently. I've seen three in the last few months. ×Meegs 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: db-unksource and db-unfree templates 

message: I propose we permit speedy deletion of articles with no sources.  This would also include articles with self written sources.  For example, the Liberal Party of Canada article referencing the Liberal Party of Canada web site.  Thoughts?  Alan.ca 06:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't even a proper basis for an AfD nomination. You might want to bring your proposal to WP:DEL first. I wouldn't expect much support for it there, either, though. Simões (talk/contribs) 07:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may want to see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. There isn't much support for the idea. Titoxd(?!?) 07:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles lacking sources 

message: Hi, I recently tagged two article talk pages as needed, with a high class importance. This is part of the Cricket Wikiproject. However, the needed concept was ignored, and the pages were speedy deleted under G8. I do not see this as valuable to the encyclopedia at all. The two pages were about national cricket boards, which currently did not have articles.  
Would it be possible to extend G8 to contain needed articles as an exception to the rule where talk pages are eliminated if articles do not exist. Ansell 08:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not maintain a list of needed articles somewhere at the WikiProject? There is also Wikipedia:Requested articles. This would avoid having orphaned talk pages out there. --bainer (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem with Orphaned talk pages?  Mathiastck 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there is not much harm in keeping "orphaned" talk pages containing a "needed" or "missing" statement in a WikiProject banner. That would allow for missing articles to show up in bot-generated lists like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cricket articles by quality. In fact, I am surprised that people delete these tak pages. Kusma (討論) 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the primary concerns in this area have always been ease of navigation and maintenance, and in both respects I think a list has greater benefit in this type of situation. However if the system is properly maintained by bot, and not by hand, then it would probably be no big deal. --bainer (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor using a template on orphaned talk pages, thereby describing what they are, why they are orphaned, and putting them into a list automatically.  Mathiastck 14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: G8 is for housekeeping, and should be used for nothing more. Take a look at  and see if that helps deter users who interpret G8 too widely. BigNate37(T) 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: G6 is housekeeping. G8 is about talk pages of deleted or nonexistent pages. —Centrx→talk • 03:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that, and I regretted using the wording soon after making that comment. What I meant by it was that G8 is only for talk pages which are of no value, those for which an MfD (is that the right XfD for talk pages without articles?) would merely be a formality. G8 should not be used to delete talk pages which are still relevant despite the absence of an accompanying article. BigNate37(T) 04:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're both right but some history might help others reading the thread.  When we changed the rule to stop allowing anon users to create article pages, we still allowed them to create Talk pages.  It slowed down the vandalism on article pages but many vandals simply started creating their nonsense on Talk pages - pages for which there never would or could be real articles.  This criterion was defined largely in response to that problem - the need to swiftly clean up the bad-faith creation of a page which served no useful purpose except to waste other editors time and attention.  We always expected that admins would use recognize the good-faith "orphaned" talk pages and use common sense.  Rossami (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not seen it go down such in practice.  G8 is poorly worded.  It is commonly being interpreted as a mandate to delete any talk page that does not have an article, even talk pages clearly designed for the purpose of assisting in the creation of an article.  I would refer you here for a point in case Template_talk:Future_article_talk_page.  Mathiastck 14:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extend G8 to include "needed" articles 

message: I added a criteria T2, and noted it had been repealed by community consensus and was kept for historical reasons.  My reasoning is this:  A8 is kept, even though no longer applicable, to prevent another criteria from being added with the number A8.  I submit the theory is that criteria numbers should be unique.  T2 was listed for some time.  Further, T2 is of historical interest, as there was a major comotion about it, before my time.  There still exists a user category Category:Anti_T2_Wikipedians.  As such, I believe that T2 should be kept for historical interest, and barred from being the number for a future, different criteria.  I went ahead and made the change to WP:CSD feeling this will not be controversial, but I'm noting it here, just in case I am in error.  I know it was contentious, and even resulted in protection of the CSD due to edit warring while under discussion.   AubreyEllenShomo 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that Radiant! removed T2 as part of a copyedit, but don't see any discussion on T2 here.  I still beleive that T2 should be kept for historical reasons, and since Radiant! didn't comment here on removing it, I can only assume he overlooked this talk section, and the reasons for my add of T2.  As such, I feel it's appropriate for me to undo that part of his copyedit, and re-add T2.  I did so with revision 97656411 (edsum Revision 95081296 by Radiant! edsum "copyed" removed historical reference to T2, without discussion. Readded T2.)  AubreyEllenShomo 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything you've done is in good faith, no doubt, but I agree with Radiant!. It's not needed. Metamagician3000 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do we explain all the debates about CSD T2 if T2 is replaced with something else? The pages will make no sense. -Amarkov blahedits 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who keep reverting this back in - as far as I know it was first placed there only a couple of weeks ago. It does not have consensus. On the merits, it is not necessary. There is no reason to enshrine the T2 episode forever on the face of one of our most important policies. On the contrary, it is a period that we should put behind us - the issue was resolved in another way that actually met the spirit of what the sponsors of T2 were trying to achieve but without the most extreme policies on userboxes prevailing. Please let this heal. If there is ever a proposal for a new T2 the debate will probably be ancient history. Metamagician3000 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many things which reference it, which is a good reason to keep it. Do you have a good reason why it is harmful? -Amarkov blahedits 03:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then what do you propose we change all the instances of "T2" on talk pages into? Common sense dictates that you don't give something else the name of an already entrenched concept. We would not, for instance, give the WP:NOTE redirect to the hypothetical policy Wikipedia:Notation methods, even if Wikipedia:Notability was someday rejected as policy. At the very least, there should be a note for T2 saying "For the historical T2 deletion criteria, see Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. Especially if a new policy is put in its place. --tjstrf talk 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The ghost of T2 (keeping T2 reserved for historical interest)

message: There have been a number of revisions and reverts being made to a number of CSD templates for example Template:nn-warn. The problem is some people want there to be a headline in the template, and others do not because if you create a new talk page then you create a header at the same time. Either way a decision has to be made so that there is consistency, and that New page patrollers are happy with these tools. I assume this is a suitable place for this discussion, if not tell me.  Lethaniol 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your last point about the red link is very good reason not to have it. Of course we could still have heading without link? Lethaniol 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could, and sometimes I use the article title without the link. However, often I just want to add the warning to an existing section. The problem with automated headers is that you can't adjust as may be appropriate. Fan-1967 15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can easily change red-reason, just replace : with  only. So you will get a headline without link. Or some more complex (link). ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're mistaken. There is no obligation to put in a heading. When you go to a new Talk page, you're automatically in edit mode, and you can just start typing text with no header. On an existing page, click "edit this page" instead of "+". Again, you can just enter text with no header. Fan-1967 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, just leave Subject/headline blank and put template into text box. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry my mistake. Thanks Lethaniol 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though I think it is somewhat useful, I still think it should be up to the warner to create the headline.  None of the other warning templates autp include the heading.  I do not see why this template is any different.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify - the AFD, PROD and a number of other CSD user talk page warnings do have a linked title - so this issue could affect a few templates. P.S. I know AFD and PROD are not being discussed here, but the same arguments are apparent, especially as they are used more heavily on new users pages too. Lethaniol 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an issue with a linked title in the warning. I just don't want it in 24 point type as a section header. Fan-1967 19:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand that the CSD warnings are different from the test warnings, but I think it will be important to make them consistent across all warnings.  When i give a test, I know exactly what I am going to get, when i grab a new warning from the list at WP:WARN, i assume it will be in a certain format, and that is without the heading built into the template.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't you realize that if we make 5 extra templates, we will run out of server space?  (Kidding, kidding.)  In all seriousness, the one problem with forking it is that you now have two places you have to maintain the text.  What about instead having  and ?  (We can argue about whether it defaults to 0 or 1.) BigDT 07:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah forking it is a not-so-good idea, but I like your idea of using fancy code on the template to give the user a choice. --WikiSlasher 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A second template set need not be an exact copy of what we've got now. Double transclusion might do the trick here, with the heading templates simply putting in the heading and then calling the original template. I'm reasonably sure that substitution gets all the levels of transclusion, and I read somewhere that transclusion shouldn't go past 10 levels so two should be fine. Comments? BigNate37(T) 07:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A great idea, as long as the default is no header. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 07:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Substitution does not get all the levels of transclusion. Try , you'll get Hello, , and in the edit window. The boldness was to make sure it would get read (I can imagine a lot of people missing a comment stuffed in the middle of text like this). --WikiSlasher 14:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having two variants is a little bit tricky, works, but maintaining one text on two places is not easy. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: BASEPAGENAME isn't a template, but I tried substituting my  and you are correct. BigNate37(T) 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Per a request on my talk page, I have mocked up a sample.  See User:BigDT/sandbox for a mocked up version of  and User talk:BigDT/sandbox for the way it would look.  Rather than do 1/0, the default is off.  If you specify anything for header, that will turn the header on.  You can use header-text to specify a particular header. PLEASE NOTE: it is important to gain a consensus before adding this code to every CSD warning template.  BigDT 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tested it out in the sandbox and it works. I wholly support it. --WikiSlasher 14:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - everybody gets what they want with this solution thanks BigDT. Has anyone got any objections if I start adding them to all the CSD warn and deletion templates. Also do you think I should add to AfD/PROD or should I discuss elsewhere. Lethaniol 15:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go ahead and add them to everything! Are we going to clap for BigDT? *clap* *clap* Yuser31415 (Review me!) 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD templates 

message: We could have it no headline as the standard, but an extra template with the header, say the template's name was CSDNote, one with the header could be CSDNote-h. What does everyone think? (btw: don't bother with bringing up the amount of space of the servers, they've got tons). --WikiSlasher 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you realize that if we make 5 extra templates, we will run out of server space?  (Kidding, kidding.)  In all seriousness, the one problem with forking it is that you now have two places you have to maintain the text.  What about instead having  and ?  (We can argue about whether it defaults to 0 or 1.) BigDT 07:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah forking it is a not-so-good idea, but I like your idea of using fancy code on the template to give the user a choice. --WikiSlasher 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A second template set need not be an exact copy of what we've got now. Double transclusion might do the trick here, with the heading templates simply putting in the heading and then calling the original template. I'm reasonably sure that substitution gets all the levels of transclusion, and I read somewhere that transclusion shouldn't go past 10 levels so two should be fine. Comments? BigNate37(T) 07:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A great idea, as long as the default is no header. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 07:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Substitution does not get all the levels of transclusion. Try , you'll get Hello, , and in the edit window. The boldness was to make sure it would get read (I can imagine a lot of people missing a comment stuffed in the middle of text like this). --WikiSlasher 14:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having two variants is a little bit tricky, works, but maintaining one text on two places is not easy. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: BASEPAGENAME isn't a template, but I tried substituting my  and you are correct. BigNate37(T) 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Per a request on my talk page, I have mocked up a sample.  See User:BigDT/sandbox for a mocked up version of  and User talk:BigDT/sandbox for the way it would look.  Rather than do 1/0, the default is off.  If you specify anything for header, that will turn the header on.  You can use header-text to specify a particular header. PLEASE NOTE: it is important to gain a consensus before adding this code to every CSD warning template.  BigDT 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tested it out in the sandbox and it works. I wholly support it. --WikiSlasher 14:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - everybody gets what they want with this solution thanks BigDT. Has anyone got any objections if I start adding them to all the CSD warn and deletion templates. Also do you think I should add to AfD/PROD or should I discuss elsewhere. Lethaniol 15:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go ahead and add them to everything! Are we going to clap for BigDT? *clap* *clap* Yuser31415 (Review me!) 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Having it both ways

message: Currently says: "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere."
I've seen a practice to keep talk pages also in cases when the discussion continues about the creation of a valid article (discussing reliable sources, etc.) 
Should this option be codified as well? `'mikkanarxi 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always classified that as "deletion discussion", personally. I wouldn't be opposed to perhaps being a bit clearer on that, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a template to tag these as being exempt to the deletion criterion: . Obviously it should only be used for good faith discussions. -- nae'blis 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously must be mentioned in the policy. Please, someone who had good English, do so, something like, "... or tagged with " to indicate good-faith discussions of a future article". `'mikkanarxi 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's entirely appropriate and accepted to keep such information in a sandbox area in your userspace.  (or you can store it on your own computer, or somewhere with an easy HTML editor so you can link to articles...  I personally prefer this, since I don't like people to be able to see me making sausage)  --Interiot 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would serve the purpose of helping me later create the article, but would not serve the purpose of helping other people create the article.  Mathiastck 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G8: Talk pages 

message: *CSD#A9 - "Articles which make absolutely no attempt to be an encyclopedia article." Bye-bye fanfic. That would be good. Deizio talk 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A9 

message: Now who noxiously protected this? Suggest changes the "Test pages" example to something that we see ALOT more often the "Can I really...": 
Bold text[[[Link title]
== Image:Headline textMedia:Example.ogg--~~~~Insert non-formatted text here ==
]]'''
IE. The "hit all the buttons in a row" test. 68.39.174.238 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you think of a good example, then edit the page yourself? (Hint, hint.) Kimchi.sg 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The purpose isn't really to list every example from the field, I always felt like the "Can I edit this page?" example really quickly sums up the spirit of the rule in a way anyone can understand. It was quick and sufficient... and pretty trivial to change anyway. --W.marsh 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I suggested this, the page was protected. Thanx for the unprotect. 68.39.174.238 11:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BLAST IT, someone removed it with a lame edit summary (Altough I've done that more then a few times... I wonder who I've got saying the same...)... 68.39.174.238 19:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|editprotected}} 

message: I placed a db/G11 tag on New Zealand Disaster Assistance Response Team, and the creator responded with a . 
Discussion ensued on the Talk:New_Zealand_Disaster_Assistance_Response_Team page.  Still seems clearcut to me-- see bottom of the talk page.
So the question is, at what point do I change this to an AfD or a Prod?  TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 22:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, if you have to ask, it shouldn't be speedied.  On their "about us" page , they say, "Conceptualised in August 2006, NZDART has an ambitious project to become a United Nations accredited international disaster search and rescue team by the end of 2007."  Ok ... come back and make your article at the end of 2007. Still, though, speedies should only be used when it is obvious and I don't know that this one is obvious. BigDT 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough.  Remaining question though-- next step Prod or AfD? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO if you still think it should be deleted use AfD. From the talk page the user who created the page has some arguments why it should stay, and will likely want to raise them, so no point in PROD. Cheers Lethaniol 01:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well apparently someone saw it my way-- before I got around to cluttering up AfD with it, the page is gone.  Hosannah! -- Mwanner | Talk 16:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process - Contested speedy deletion 

message: FYI: A discussion has taken place on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard under the heading "Consensus on vandalism user subpages" (<= that is a permalink reference) which argues for extension by consensus the application of CSD G3 (Pure vandalism) to user subpages that are advertised as being targets for invited vandalism. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use Addendum for CSD G3 - Vandalism-focused User Subpages 

message: :See also discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Speedy deletion criteria for images?
Per What Wikipedia is Not Policy: ... not a free file host. -> File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia." (bold mine, should read article or project namespace) As such, any image uploaded that is not used in article or project namespace within 2 hours of its upload timestamp, and the image is deemed not to have encyclopedic value, shall fit under this criteria. If a user cannot upload an image and add the image within 2 hours of the upload, and the image appears to be UE, then they most likely are abusing the uploading capability. Further, users deemed to have uploaded a file that fits under this CSD criteria shall be warned with a template TBD. Uploading another file that results in this CSD deletion shall require a 1 week block of their uploading privileges. If it is not possible to just block upload privileges, a 1 week block on the account in general shall occur instead. If an image is tagged with this CSD, and by the time an administrator gets around to deleting it, it is included in the article or project namespace, the CSD template shall be removed. Warnings shall only be given by admins once the image is deleted. --MECU≈talk 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 2 hour rule would lead to too much abuse - there's no way to know if this orphaned image that was uploaded six months ago has been orphaned all along or only just became orphaned.  The big problem with patently unencyclopedic images isn't just that someone is using Wikipedia for free webhosting.  The major source of encyclopedic images is that someone uploads 5 pictures of themself making weird faces for their vanity page.  The page is speedied under A7, but the images are left out there.  I think if we would simply specify that images that have no other encyclopedic use should be deleted when the article is deleted, that would be sufficient. BigDT 03:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: IfD handles this fine.  Threats of blocks are simply absurd, quite frankly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, however when confronted with a few dozen some images it takes a good chunk of time to list them all properly on IFD, and so a lot of people just don't bother and the images stay. Personaly I do think that orphanded "personal photos" (pictures of non-notable persons) would be a good addition to CSD (I can't rememver ever seeing such a deletio beeing contested). As for threatening blocks, that depends. If someone re-upload useless "personal photos" and simmilarly useless images after they have been deleted I would give them a warning and point them towrds WP:NOT, if they then ignored the warning and uploaded more such images I would have no quams about blocking them, and I have done so in the past (especialy if I find evidence that the images are beeing used "off site", in one instance for example someone was using Wikipedia to host all the graphis used on his (dodgy) online shopping site, another user was using Wikipedia only to store screenshots and signature banners for use on a Habbo hotell webforum). --Sherool (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposed criteria is too wide-open to abuse. Well-meaning editors who have a couple self-pictures and use them alternatingly will have one-week blocks threatened for reuploading their image? Unacceptable. Further, all one must do to legitimise the file-host usage is create a userpage or subpage thereof listing all the images. The intention is good, but the way it's worded now would do too much harm for too little good. IfD is not a complicated process, and we shouldn't be creating new speedy deletion criteria if we don't have enough people helping out with it. BigNate37(T) 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be fine with adding a criteria for images that were only used on A7-deleted articles (and I'd do it even if there wasn't a criteria). That would take care of the scenario that BigDT mentioned above. Anything more could be easily abused. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Additional Image CSD Criteria 

message: I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a fair use rationale.  At present, it's kindof a moving target.  Some pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject".  Patroling :Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.  So I would like for us to formalize what is required.  I have also created Template:Fair use rationale that I am proposing we use as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. BigDT 22:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale guideline proposal 

message: There has been a discussion above whether CSD templates should have a Header or not. It has been proposed by BigDT that we can have it both ways with a template that allows you to insert a header or not, and even what that header says.
Copied from above = Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD templates
:Per a request on my talk page, I have mocked up a sample.  See User:BigDT/sandbox for a mocked up version of  and User talk:BigDT/sandbox for the way it would look.  Rather than do 1/0, the default is off.  If you specify anything for header, that will turn the header on.  You can use header-text to specify a particular header. PLEASE NOTE: it is important to gain a consensus before adding this code to every CSD warning template.  BigDT 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the earlier discussion, I support this change as excellent backwards compatability. -- nae'blis 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: --Dgies 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I want headers on templates, and I refuse to do CAT:CSD until they are on by default.  The people that want to clear backlogs as quickly as possible are the people that need automatic headers.  If people have enough time to write their own header, they have enough time to remove the text that adds one automatically.  Why should I and others in my situation (you better be out there!!!) have to be slowed down by things like this?  J Di talk 21:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds pretty immature. If you don't have the two seconds to add a parameter, how do you take the time to read an article before speedying? Unless you're being sarcastic and making the same point I am... I can't tell. Either way, I have no sympathy for the people who don't have the time to add a parameter. BigNate37(T) 23:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if it sounds immature, and I don't know what your point is, but I'm not doing CSD until headers are on the warning templates by default.  You can say that it only takes two seconds to add the text that adds a header, but that two seconds is the difference between me doing CSD and me doing something else.  The people that don't want headers should be the ones that have to spend more time on removing text from templates, especially if they don't want headers because they write their own.  The people that don't want headers are the people that were already typing stuff on people's talk pages.  Why should I have to start doing that as well?  J Di talk 23:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not at all about wishing to slow you down, but it's about trying to create a harmonised system on wikipedia, so that all users will know exactly what will be produced when a template is issued. The work we are doing at the Wikiproject user warnings is to create a harmonised system throughout Wikipedia that will eventually cover all templates. The majority of templates that are issued are multi levelled warnings, and unfortunately these usually do not get issued singularly. Now if we were to include headers with every single warning issued I hope you can imagine the mess that would ensue. If you can explain your rational over at WP:UW on why no headers prevents you carrying out your work then I'm sure we can talk it through. But is another 2 seconds along time, when you are talking about the permanent deletion of an article from Wikipedia? Regards Khukri  (talk . contribs) 17:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Be careful in using statistics, fifteen isn't really adequate to estimate community opinion and it isn't fair to add up numbers without a formal vote. BigNate37(T) 21:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point BigNate - but one of the challenges by Dgies, was that a consensus/majority was needed to make a decision. Now this does not represent the whole community, not by far, but it shows that, in those that were interested and willing to give their opinion, that the majority wanted No Headers. Therefore I believe the onus is on people to make a very good argument why there should be headers as standard (beyond J Di selfish response) or show there is a majority support for this position, and until then the templates should have no headings. Cheers Lethaniol 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My "response" wasn't selfish.  It's what I have to say about this, and there's nothing wrong with it.  Try assuming good faith every once in a while and remain civil.  If you've got a problem with what I've got to say, tell me on my talk page.  J Di talk 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD templates - HEADINGS 

message: Since the  template has been modified to only apply to the original creator, an anon IP or sockpuppet can now remove the tags as many times as they want. Ideas? Fan-1967 20:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about put it back the way it was?  Why did that even change?  I must have missed a memo.  I almost ripped someone a new one recently and then noticed that the wording had changed...  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reworded per a TFD discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 21#Template:Drmspeedy. A lot of people (most of whom, I'm guessing, do not engage in NPP) did not like the wording. Fan-1967 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus should be ignored if it causes problems; I'm removing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just not consensus if they had incomplete or inaccurate information when making the decision. —Centrx→talk • 22:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe "incomplete" is the operative word. The issues raised there were the (rare, IMO) instances where a legitimate, experienced editor got hit with a db tag. I don't think most of those in the discussion have any idea of the nature and volume of what goes through CSD every hour. Fan-1967 23:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually came across this problem a lot before the change. Or are we talking about how the template was before the TfD? Bubba hotep 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even before the change I suppose you could create a new sock for every four reverts. If none of them ever remove the tag a fifth time they can't get blocked for it. Never actually saw that happen, but it's possible. But what I'm seeing lately is one creator ID and then an IP or sock that endlessly removes the tag. Fan-1967 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if they are trying to be clever, you could try and be clever and put the drmspeedy on their (the IP's) talk page - might make them think! Bubba hotep 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried that. I get a note from the IP saying "I didn't create it". I can't disprove it. Remember we're not talking about clueless noobs; these are clearly deliberate actions. Fan-1967 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's beyond me what they expect to gain out of it since you could take it to AfD and have it speedied there and then anyway. It's just a game to them, I suppose. Bubba hotep 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, you can let me know and I'll delete it if I agree with you - tag or not.  Of course there's no guarantee that I'll be around at the time but I'd guess most other admins would do the same.  Speedy delete is not prod so removal of a tag doesn't mean the same as with a prod.  (Unless someone changed the speedy guidelines so that it's like prod now - maybe I missed that memo too!) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the other issue is that CSD gets so backed up it's often a while before an admin gets to it, so there's time for a lot of tagging and untagging. Fan-1967 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the end, I'm not sure it's so much different to have sockpuppets removing the notice than the author.  It can still be deleted.  The warning is just a warning and has no effect on the article at all. Even with the warning there can be a lot of untagging/retagging by the author under their normal screenname while CSD is backed up. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the author retags more than four times after warning, s/he can be reported at AIV and blocked. That option is not available for socks because they have not, in fact, done anything against the rules. They cannot even be warned per the templates. Fan-1967 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Did I once read somewhere that you can add the article to the Category:Speedy deletion candidates without worrying about the tag going missing? It will still be in the category and the author/IP might not notice? Bubba hotep 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe I missed the memo about the headline going missing off the nn-warn template as well! Although, I did notice that someone has created a fully definable one now. There's a lot of memos going missing! Bubba hotep 21:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the section immediately above this one. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I was only made aware of the section above by the person above who I commented... er, below. To clarify, MER-C pointed me in this direction when I raised the question with him. Now I know where to look, I'll be 100% in the know at all times! :) Bubba hotep 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion on it at Template talk:nn-warn. The issue I had was for a few weeks the header kept coming and going. If I put one in, I ended up with two. If I didn't, there was none. Fan-1967 21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I went there too. I was a bit bemused when I did one this morning and it merged and mingled in with the rest of the collection of warnings the user had amassed in the last few days. Guess we have to keep them on the watch list really. We have a phrase in England, goes something like "NN-warn headers are like buses, none for ages and then two turn up at the same time" - also called :Sod's Law. Bubba hotep 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the issue with headers in nn-warn and any other CSD userpage notification should now be sorted - you can have the best of both worlds. See section directly above. Also try it out - does it work (the nn-warn template), any comments. Feedback good. Nice to know before I add to all the other CSD userpage notification templates. Cheers Lethaniol 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS maybe we should cut and paste this discussion into the above one, its a bit in the way Lethaniol 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about changing the "rule" such that anyone may remove a speedy that is patently unrelated to the page (eg, an article tagged with an image speedy, an article about a company tagged as db-vand), but that if it is disputed, a non-administrator should use  and leave a note at the talk page of the person who tagged it rather than removing it himself or herself.  That's just good practice anyway - rather than reverting, discuss.  BigDT 05:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I don't think we should be ceding certain kinds of editing to admins except in the most important cases (such as deletion).  Any editor can remove a maintenance tag, but certainly it's not always done correctly.  That doesn't mean only admins should be given the power to judge whether a mainenance tag can be removed.  Instead, restore the tags and inform the detagger as to why.  Same with speedies.  NickelShoe (Talk) 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your disagreement (er... yeah, whatever). Admins are supposed to be only slightly higher than every other editor; I don't like the idea of some anon maliciously placing a db tag on an article and only an admin can remove it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Except, of course, that the whole point of CSD (thousands a day, now) is to keep from cluttering up AFD with crap that has zero chance of being kept. Fan-1967 05:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably ought to be clear about the kinds of things we are talking about.  If the page is "BOB IS A MORON AND I HATE HIM", there's no reason for anyone ever to remove that tag ... if a sock insists on removing it, it can always be reported at AIV.  If we're talking about a band or person of questionable notability, and someone other than the author removes the tag, discussion rather than immediately retagging it might be a good thing.  BigDT 05:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we're back to the template. How can we report it at AIV when, per the wording of the template, he's perfectly allowed to remove the tag? And yes, I am talking about absolute garbage, "John is the coolest guy in the world" kind of articles. Fan-1967 05:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty legalistic.  In any case, anyone is allowed to remove speedy tags if the article doesn't meet the speedy criteria.  If it clearly does, that's a problem whether the detagger created the article or not (unless of course they're simply downgrading to prod or AFD). The wording of the template has no effect on the actual policy in any case...just because the warning used to imply that only admins could remove speedy notices doesn't mean that's what the policy page said. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So any sock can claim he believes the tag doesn't apply and remove it. Not vandalism, and therefore not reportable at AIV. And we're not supposed to repost anything at AIV until the editor has been warned, but there is no warning template applicable to the action. Fan-1967 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say removing a tag without a valid, stated reason (for instance, via an edit summary or comment on the talk page) could be construed as an act of vandalism in itself and therefore merits a warning. Maybe the CSD tag could specify the importance of doing so – although it already does, in a way. Perhaps the word is emphasise the importance. Bubba hotep 08:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the simplest solution is not to fight over the tag but ask an admin on his/her talk page to delete it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  drmspeedy - vandals are wising up 

message: CSD R2 is about "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User_talk: space from the main article space"; however, the corresponding deletion template listed in the table is  , "CSD R2: Redirect to user page.", and I could not find any other one for other spaces. Does such a template exist, or should this one be modified or a new one created ? In particular, I have a bunch of redirects from main space to Talk: which should be listed for SD. Schutz 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and modified the template.--Kchase T 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent; and I have created  as a redirect to the template (and I have used it already !). Schutz 10:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that  is a good wording-neutral form. BigNate37(T) 14:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for CSD-R2 

message: Infoboxes can be quite extensive and contain a lot of information.  However, it seems that having an infobox only or an infobox alongside rewording of infobox content as the only text for an article doesn't seem to be representative of a reasonable article.  Such an article couldn't really be deleted under, for instance, A1 or A3 (short+no context or no content) as the infobox provides the context and information in it can be extensive.  Would you agree that A1 and A3 are not suitable for speedy deleting such articles? (example Dugway High School) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  Sometimes someone will start with an infobox and fill in additional information later.  Likewise if all someone knows about the subject are the basic facts that go into an infobox starting with that can inspire someone else to craft a prose article later.  As an example; my biggest effort on the French Wikipedia to date is an article on :fr:Columbus, Indiana.  I have a lot of trouble composing things in French, and I have trouble with infoboxes.  It took me several hours to get the infobox set up.  Then I crafted an intro sentence that basically said, "Columbus is a city in Indiana which is famous for its modern architecture."  By then I was exhausted and out of time to work on it so I went off and left it.  I have gone back and worked on it some since then, and fully intend to eventually flesh it out into a longer article.  I'd be pretty upset if it was deleted in the mean time.  Perhaps the authors of these articles intend to return to finish them later.  Perhaps they have difficulty with English (I doubt this is the case in the school example, but I'm sure there are many stubs on cities in non-English speaking countries where this may be the case).  Perhaps the infobox info is all they know and they would like to know more and are hoping someone will expand the article for them.  There are many reasons why someone would create such an article and it doesn't seem fair to say, "an infobox is not a replacement for an article. The person who created the infobox should have spent the time instead writing about it".  Infoboxes provide useful information.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These sort of articles should definitely be speedy-undeleted if someone says they intend to expand them soon.  Or they could be userfied in the first place.  It's just that many readers would probably be surprised to run across such a page.  Having even a single intro sentence along with the infobox improves the article significantly.  If there were a way to hide articles that are being edited but not ready for general readers (stable versions maybe?), infobox-only articles would always be put in that state without needing discussion. --Interiot 22:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are a number of 'work in progress' templates, like Template:Underconstruction (see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance for more). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox-only articles 

message: Please see Template talk:No rationale. I started a discussion there that no one seems to be interested in. Basically, CSD I5 originally applied only to images tagged with  or  but somehow the interpretation has been broadened to all fair use tags -- I don't remember any discussion on this -- but IMHO the wording is still confusing. Thanks. howcheng  {chat} 00:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated CSD I6 to apply only to generic fair use tags such as , and not to specific ones such as .  This was, in my view, the outcome of a discussion held earlier this month (a few sections back), but the policy was never updated.  Mangojuicetalk 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said before, I fully support going back to the old language.  See above discussion under "Can we clarify I6?".  User:Feydey, in reply to my question, found where the language was changed - .  The intention was to clarify that not only Non-free fair use in, but also , , etc, required rationales.  The unintended consequence was that people have started to speedy screenshots, even though that tag contains a rationale.  Going back to the old language is a very good thing.  Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline.  This proposed guideline helps to clarify what should be in a fair use rationale.  If we are going to be removing images that don't have a rationale, we need to describe what a rationale entails and I think a template -  - will be helpful in creating rationales. BigDT 07:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|No rationale}} 

message: I would like to propose that the following criteria be added:
Images uploaded for the sole purpose of being used in a page which falls under another criteria for speedy deletion.  The image must have been uploaded at approximately the same time as the page was written and be used only on that page.
This comes up often, as people write their own bio and include an image, or about a company and include a logo, etc. —Mets501 (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have sworn this came up not too long ago.  Images must be discussed on their own merits, and just because an image is uploaded for a speedied page does not mean that the image cannot be used in other articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this was proposed here on 18 December.  The discussion has not yet been archived.  —David Levy 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image criteria 

message: I'm still on a learning curve with new page CSD patrol, and I just started using the template tags recommended in the CSD boxes for informing the creator of the page. But I was a bit surprised and alarmed that the automatic messages from the couple of templates i just tried out 1) assume that the CSD nominator has made a totally valid CSD nomination, when in fact it this may be challenged and the nominator may be in error and 2) the message consequently goes against the spirit of WP:BITE which as I understand, is regarded as especially important for new page patrol.  There should at least be a mention that the tagger may be wrong and that the tagging is challengeable. Furthermore, the tone of the messages is a bit too aggressive, I feel. (In the particular case I was just involved in, the user was creating obviously nonsense/possibly attack pages, so I'm not withdrawing the tags as they're somewhat appropriate, but what about more innocent newbies?) 
I haven't looked at all the templates yet but here are the examples of the templates I just tried out:
* For db-nonsense: Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as "Ida heimdal") are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
* For db-attack: Please do not make personal attacks on other people as you did at Stian Karlsen. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
How do others feel about this issue? 
Bwithh 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with automatic message templates for informing article creators

message: We need a CSD for templates which are duplicates of other templates which serves no distinct purpose and/or serves the same purpose and has no transclusions.  An example of this is Template:Vandlised, a near-duplicate of Template:Protected template.  It has no difference, was created two days ago by a user with no edit summary, and has no links.  Thoughts? -- Renesis (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. If you don't like the way a template looks or is worded, you're supposed to edit it or discuss it, not create a template with the same purpose but different layout or wording. Such templates do appear with some frequency, and do get deleted on TFD. >Radiant< 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no need for a speedy deletion criterion.  Simply redirecting the page gets the job done and reduces the likelihood of someone duplicating the pre-existing template under that name in the future.  —David Levy 01:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  Solve it through discussion or be bold and make it a redirect.  Speedy-deletion is unnecessary instruction creep.  Rossami (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There'd also be incessant arguments over which is the 'duplicate'. The natural assumption would be to keep the earliest, but in many cases the more recent template may be better in some way. For instance, I'd rather keep  than the dozens of nearly identical templates for specific groups of characters which preceded it. Or  over its less efficient predecessors... there was an effort to delete that form as a 'duplicate', but it failed when thoroughly reviewed - which might not have happened if it were just speedyable. --CBD 11:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Such a speedy deletion criterion is too easy to circumvent by simply transcluding it somewhere. Redirecting is more appropriate, unless it's not a useful redirect, and that's an issue for RfD. If the author doesn't believe it should be a redirect, that's a legitimate content dispute. Deco 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good in theory, but templates can be substed, and are you really going to make absolutely sure they aren't before using this? And for duplicates, redirection is much better than deletion, because then you don't have to go through all the instances. -Amarkov blahedits 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that people circumventing this CSD is really the issue.  This is a CSD to make admin cleanup more efficient, and not require this go to the template deletion discussion.  I'd say that if the template is redirected or transcluded this doesn't apply.  In a situation where it's simply a duplicate template, it should.  A content dispute can be raised by making it a redirect, requiring a RfD discussion.  Assuming a redirect isn't added, and there are no transclusions or other uses of the template, speedy delete is a good option.  Redirect isn't needed if the duplicate template isn't used at all.  If it is used, then redirect is a good option, but it wouldn't meet this criteria until someone changed all inclusions of the template.  Either way, this is as good a CSD an any other, in my huble opinion.  AubreyEllenShomo 03:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to note that if such a criterion is added, it should be numbered T3, as I feel T2 should be kept for historical reasons.  See my other comment.  Everyone remembers the big T2 dispute. (Or so I'm told.  It was before my time.)  AubreyEllenShomo 03:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as I recall T2 was proposed, briefly included, and then taken out. The only reason for having the "historical" entries is for deletion logs that refer to the CSDs by number. That is no problem here. —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Aubrey: "everybody remembers it or so I'm told" implies that you don't remember it :) Other than bureaucracy, there is no particular reason to keep all historical issues on-page, except where this would mess up the higher numbers. >Radiant< 08:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... my point was kinda just glossed over. How can you tell the difference between a substed template and an unused template? -Amarkov blahedits 07:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *You can't, basically. But I'm not convinced redirecting would work in such cases; the people who make template forks tend to undo such redirects because their template is prettier. >Radiant< 08:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Then take the matter to TfD.  Speedy deletion is not intended as a means of resolving good-faith content disputes.  It's a means of quickly eliminating material that already has been deemed unacceptable or unneeded by the Wikimedia Foundation (or someone representing it in an official capacity) or the Wikipedia community.  Extraneous template forks are widely disliked, but it is not within a sysop's discretion to delete a template to which he/she has unilaterally applied this status.  If someone believes that his/her template is better, perhaps it is (in which case a merger might be appropriate).  —David Levy 12:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Redirection is generally better to avoid repeated good-faith recreations of variant templates. Content debates should be hashed out somewhere other than XfD, and certainly not via CSD. Any seriously pointed or bad-faith template forks can go to TFD, which is far from overloaded. -- nae'blis 17:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new Template CSD 

message: The "Patant copyright violation" bit has a field for entrance of the URL where the image was taken from. Now, If I know the image to be Patant copyright violation because I know where it comes from in a book, not a webpage, and I know that it was not legitimatly tagged as all rights released, what tag am I supposed to use? Thanatosimii 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would do something like . Granted, you'll have to substitute the book and copyright info, but I think it'll get the point across just as well. 68.39.174.238 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does one do with the following. 

message: As a result of Template:Kaboohoo Network, I suggest this:
Pages which exist which solely as promotion for a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic to become articels or templates which are used solely to link to illegitimate external sites or are useful only on pages which also meet this criterion. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.
Basically that template was a collection of internal links, all of which were SPAMs. The "illegitimate external link" thing should work for stuff like links to copyright violating lyrics sites, or the notorious 'AE SPAMmers. 68.39.174.238 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is G11 not sufficient? It's subjective and abused enough as it is, we don't need more advertising CSDs. Deco 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion to SPAM 

message: I'd like to make it clear that what I gave is not an isolated example. This is slightly less clear cut, being an article about a commercial firm, and some of it does seem like advertising, anthough not blatently so:
Wine-Searcher.com provides a Google-like search for wines across the price lists of wine merchants, wineries, and wine auction houses world wide. Wine-Searcher started in 1999 and these days lists more than 7500 wine retailers price lists with over 2,000,000 pricing entries (as of July, 2006).
Wine-Searcher opened up the wine trade by providing full price transparency within wine retailing. Traditionally the pricing policies of retailers for older wines, and their availability and distribution of those wines, was hidden from all those outside of a very small group of international wine brokers. The prices charged by different retailers varied widely even within small regions.
Since 2002, Wine-Searcher has become the main reference source used by the wine trade to establish market value. It has also become more common for high-end wine enthusiasts to also act as collectors/traders of older vintages, that is, as well as purchasing wines for storage and later drinking many enthusiasts now also sell some of their older wines back to the market.
Wine-Searcher provides a free service for the casual wine drinker, and a comprehensive “Professional Version” for $29.95 (USD) per year. Other functionality includes a detailed breakdown of the world’s wine regions, a directory of wine stores by region, rankings of wines by search frequency, and the ability for collectors to advertise their excess wines for sale.
This was marked simply (WP:CSD#A7). It was by a different editor. Note the 1st sentence ofthe 3rd paragraph. This is as clear an assertion of notability as can be imagined. I doubt that this organization has the international   significance that  JB had, and I would certainly understand putting a tag on asking for removal of some of the advertising content, but not as a speedy, since there is objective content as well.  But to mark nn  (no assertion of notability) on  an article saying "main reference source used by the [   ] trade"? I would ask for verifiability, but some people who place these nn  tags do not read the articles. I think nn is too inherently controversal a category for speedy. DGG 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It seems quite reasonable that if an article doesn't even assert that the subject is notable that we shouldn't have it.  But often people write articles trying to be objective and don't make the notability clear.  And often even when notability is asserted, articles are still speedied.  If we can't trust ourselves to be more responsible than this we should be talking about narrowing speedy criteria. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: another instance of nn abuse

message: This just came through on wikipedia-l. Nominators and deleters are asked to take especial care to remember that not everything is on Google. And when some users are using a semiautomatic deletion bot to delete one entry every twenty seconds for an hour, it's easy to see many articles getting zapped inadvertently - David Gerard 14:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While true that sometimes the Google test is misused, I believe these users are wrong. If you are from India, know your native language, and know the topic is important, first write it in your native Wikipedia and then in the English one, providing an interwiki to demonstrate the article is "accepted" in your native language. This is pretty useful when checking obscure topics: if the topic has been deleted in its native language, it is an indication the topic has been found to be non notable. Remember, the editor must prove the topic is notable, not us. By the way, I am from this third world, and haven't noticed any bias against Argentina, probably because articles written by our main contributors always have a good number of references. -- ReyBrujo 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That all misses the point: there was a claim to notability and the article was deleted as non-notable. That's wrong, and Google searches shouldn't (and probably weren't) even used to determine anything here—non-notability CSD is being abused. BigNate37(T) 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the burden of evidence, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. We can't send to AFD every article which claims notability without providing a source. By the way, Vikalp hasn't been deleted. -- ReyBrujo 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd. You can't speedy an article which does not qualify for any of the speedy deletion criteria, plain and simple—regardless of any fancy logic which says otherwise. If you see an article which does not qualify for speedy, but does violate core content policies (such as the one you cited here) take it to AfD. If and when AfD gets backlogged and we lose our ability to delete content, I'm sure the community will expand CSD as necessary. BigNate37(T) 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A7 is pretty simple: delete if non notable. If you claim notability but don't provide a source, it should go to AFD unless it is blatant (aka, "Mike Pin is the best soccer player in my town"). Again, since this has not happened, or at least, there is no proof that this has happened, it is all conjecture. -- ReyBrujo 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my apologies. I was confused and thinking of the topic directly above this one when replying; this wasn't a case of abuse of speedy delete criterion. You'd think I would have realised earlier... whoops. Sorry again. BigNate37(T) 02:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the mail thread right now, apparently someone tagged the article with a tag, and the user decided to send a mail. It is a good warning. Also, when the article was tagged there were no references to verify the information. I would have prod'ed it instead, in order to get those needed sources. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "We can't send to AFD every article which claims notability without providing a source." Yes, we can. CSD is for clear-cut deletions, and does not require sources. If there's dissent, even with an "irrational" editor, over the notability claims of a topic, it needs to be placed in a forum for discussion and given time. They need to be given a chance to provide sources. I'm going to optimistically assume that it is not the case as this person claims that some bot is deleting articles with low Google hit counts, as such a bot would never have been permitted. Deco 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiautomatic deletions and inadvertent anti-Third World systemic bias 

message: I'm creating a category for generic fair use tags, so we can have an explanatory link in the policy.  It will be :Category:Wikipedia:Generic fair use tags.  I think discussion should take place here, though, so it can attract the proper audience.  In my view, the only tags that belong in this category are those that give such weak justification that it can never be enough justification for any image.  My reasoning?  We're defining this category for the purpose of speedily deleting any image marked with such a tag, with no further rationale.  Despite what WP:FU says, a lot of the time a fair use tag comes pretty close to explaining the full rationale for the use of a non-free image, although sometimes it doesn't.  But a template like  is never enough without further justification.  Although certain templates like  are very widely used, and generally require further explanation, they don't always, so we shouldn't be deleting those images (let alone, speedily without further discussion).  Mangojuicetalk 16:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: #Can we clarify I6?. Fair use rationales should always be used. While it may be possible that in some instances, a fair use template explains what needs to be said, in the vast majority of cases, it does not. We need explanations of why the specific image can't be replaced with a free one, how the resolution or size might have been reduced, why it doesn't compete with the copyright owner, etc, etc. I don't think that's covered by just a template that's stuck on thousands of images. Also, remember that we're not actually speedying these images right away, we're waiting a week. --Rory096 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess part of my problem with this is that no one pays attention to images.  If we hard-coded it in the criterion that notice would have to be given for 7 days on the talk page of the articles the image is used in, as well as to the uploader, then at least I would actually believe that someone would notice the deletion tag, and have the chance to take action.  THEN, we would be deleting images with no rationales that no one cares enough about to save from the ax -- without that, we're basically putting up for deletion a great number of images that should actually not be deleted (i.e., better would be to write a fair use rationale for them, and which someone would actually write), without honestly giving people a chance to save them.  Frankly, this should probably be added regardless of the outcome of this debate.  Mangojuicetalk 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the notices should be put on the article page itself, in the image caption, see . The real point of this, though, should be to get the uploader to give the rationales, and to encourage people to add rationales when they upload, not just when they see something might get deleted. --Rory096 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let me refer to the guidelines at the top of this page.  A CSD must be uncontestable.  Unfortunately, a screenshot marked only with, say, , and used only for the purpose of, say, identification, marks a very contestable deletion request.  See, for instance, :Image:TCLogo2.jpg, which is a totally legitimate use, and for which the fair use tag pretty much says everything (and which had no specific rationale until just a minute ago, when I added one).  Nor is this an "exception that proves the rule," either, most TV screenshots are used legitimately, for identification or commentary, just like the tag says.  Also, I'd like to note that CSD I6 says "7 days after being uploaded", not 7 days after being tagged, which is an entirely different kind of situation.  7 days after being uploaded makes sense if no attempt at a rationale whatsoever is given (as in the case that , with no rationale, is all that is given).   Mangojuicetalk 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably one of very few exceptions. Even in there, you're adding information by saying it's the one thing that identifies the series. Also, it should be "tagged," not "uploaded," per current practice and common sense. The original "uploaded" probably refers to that being the minimum time after it was uploaded, since obviously it can't be tagged before it's uploaded. --Rory096 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding information is entirely beside the point.  MY point is that the tag, alone, pretty much explains the fair use rationale.  A clarification is helpful, and because of the FU policy, I added a rationale.  But the image was already compliant enough that it shouldn't have been deleted, let alone speedily.  And, I sincerely doubt it's one of few exceptions.  I'm going to pick out 7 random images out of the first 2000 tagged with  just for an unbiased sample, and we'll see what comes up.  From , I get numbers 657, 1077, 844, 1331, 684, 574, and 950.  In order: 574 - a screenshot of a station ID, used for critical commentary on the station ID (a history of the logo itself), covered by the tag.  657 - a screenshot from Futurama, "30th century Fox", used in 30th century, specific rationale given, but not covered by tag.  (And, fair use questionable, will nominate for deletion.)  684, image of a character on The Muppet Show, used for identifiaction, covered by tag.  844, tv screenshot of an important event on TV, use not covered by tag, but should not be deleted. 950 - just like the three's company logo shot, this is a shot of the title screen of a TV show, used for identification, covered by tag.  1077 - a screenshot of the main character of Static Shock.  Used in several articles, but in each case either for identification or critical commentary, covered by tag.  1331 - seems to be used for identification in Knot's Landing, the one screenshot from the section describing a whole season, of an important character for that season.  Here, clarification is necessary (so I'm adding a rationale), but still, its use falls under "identification or critical commentary", so it's covered by the tag.  So, in 5 out of the 6 without a specific rationale, the  tag explains the fair use rationale, at least enough that the right thing to do is write a rationale rather than delete.  Only in 1 of those 5 was clarification badly needed.  In the remaining 1 where the tv-screenshot tag doesn't cover it, clarification is also needed but deletion is probably wrong.  In the 7th instance, a specific FU rationale was given, so the criterion wouldn't apply.  Mangojuicetalk 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "generic" fair use tag? (CSD I6) 

message: Would it be possible to put the "speedy" template on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page's infobox. Either under the "speedy" category, or under the "Redirect" category?  The other article speedies are listed, but this one isn't.  There isn't an easy way to find the  template!  SkierRMH 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is already in the speedy section of the infobox.  Last one in the list.  Rossami (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Redirect Delete template

message: Hi. I've noticed an unfortunate problem on Wikipedia. There are a fair number of free images on Wikipedia that are not used anywhere on Wikipedia (articles, user pages, talk pages, etc.). Yet, no one seems to care about them enough to move them to the Wikimedia Commons, often because they have been made obsolete by a PNG or SVG version.
Because Wikipedia is not an orphanage, I propose that free images not used anywhere on Wikipedia should be tagged with  and deleted after a certain period of time, say a week or a month.
I am very much open to other ideas. —Remember the dot (t) 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move them to Commons, or nominate them at WP:IFD (although unquestionably redundant images can just be speedied as duplicates).  We don't need yet another complicated time-dependent mechanism for images that aren't actually a problem for us.  Jkelly 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, having an image available in a more efficient format is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Take a look at item 1 under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media. Perhaps we could have a time-dependent mechanism specifically for free but replaced images. —Remember the dot (t) 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that I've seen a grand total of 1 keep close at IFD, that nomming them there should work just as well as any timebased program. And be faster than a month. --tjstrf talk 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free but unwanted images 

message: I've noticed that many users remove the speedy deletion template when placing the  template.  Perhaps we should include an additional warning that says something like "...but do not remove the template" in all CSD templates.  I think it would clear up confusion and reduce the need for the  series of templates.  John Reaves 09:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  puts the page into CAT:CSD, so the article will still get looked at; I don't think there's a need to revert or hand out warnings if someone replaces a speedy template with hangon instead of just adding it.  (And  already says "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" in bold anyway.) —Cryptic 12:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Cryptic.  I've deleted many articles that had only , with no remaining delete tag. Mangojuicetalk 15:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you have done it very carefully indeed. How long do you wait? Personally, i would suggest making a second effort to notify the apparent editor of the article.DGG 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. You see a lot of  tags on teenage autobios, or even on the high school attack pages against classmates or teachers. The template, and notes regarding it, quite specifically state that there are no guarantees it will delay deletion, and if the article is patently unfit, the tag should quite properly be discounted. Fan-1967 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see them too & I agree about doing it. The problem is how to sort out the hopeless ones, because some people have a rather broad definition of hopeless, that seems to = I never heard of it. There is no way to avoid case-by-case.  DGG 09:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with {{tl|hangon}} usage

message: I've spent about 30 minutes trying to figure out how to deal with an image that is claimed as a logo but probably is not; the source given is very vague (no URL). I suggest changing a phrase in "Images/Media 7. Invalid fair-use claim" from
:may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader.
to
:may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader with .
Assuming that this is the correct procedure. ✤ JonHarder talk 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image fair use explanation. 

message: I've had this in my userspace for a while, and I've used it a few times, but I figure that it's about time that I put it forward here:
User:Ryulong/MySpace describes situations where articles about non-notable individuals or groups include their MySpace page in the article, which may or may not be considered an assertion of notability. I have used User:Ryulong/db-myspace to tag such articles a few times, but it could be used in the wider area of deletion tags.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have the same for YouTube, Blogspot, and several other sites. Most of the times, MySpace groups qualify as speedy copyright violation. I do not think this template is useful; however a template like  or  that states that would be welcomed. -- ReyBrujo 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As your essay is worded now, it seems to be aimed at articles that contain nothing but a link to MySpace.  If so, these articles already meet CSD A3.  If your worry is that someone might see a link to a MySpace page in an actual article as an "assertion of notability", I don't see this as much of an issue.  It's clearly not an assertion of notability to state that someone created a webpage somewhere.  Should we be worried that I could write an article about you, link to your WP userpage to prove you're notable, and have the article speedy-proof? Geoffrey Spear 18:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a corrolary to A7 

message: ;G13:
:Auxilliary pages for rejected proposals, such as noticeboards and templates. This does not include things which were once accepted and now no longer are, only pages for things which never were more than a proposal.
So? -Amarkov blahedits 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, I don't think it's a terrible idea, but it does not seem to warrant a speedy, either. I would guess that it does not come up very often, and when it does, it can go to MfD, and people will have time to "rescue" anything that is worthy of saving or re-purposing.  Actually, I'd support expanding PROD to pages like that before creating a speedy category for them. --MCB 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur.  MfD or PROD are sufficient.  This page is too hard to keep track of as is.  Further instruction creep is a bad thing.  Rossami (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use MfD. That seems like a criterion that might not be clear-cut either, since discussion could very well be on those pages. --tjstrf talk 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, oops, forgot about discussion. Ignore this now. -Amarkov blahedits 06:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Rejected proposals should not be deleted. They should be marked as rejected, with the reasons given on the talk page or at an MfD, and then used to educate new users or anyone who comes up with the same idea in the future. It speeds enculturation and prevents people reinventing the wheel. Carcharoth 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, G7 needs clarification following this debate. Carcharoth 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then they are edit warring. If they persist, protect the page and force them to follow a "re-opening proposal" procedure. We have this for requested moves, so why not have a formal process to move stuff from proposal to accepted/rejected back to proposal, even further back to user space, or even upwards to guideline or policy? This way, a lot of policy/guideline discussion, which is currently scattered over umpteen Wikipedia talk: pages, could be centralised and organised. You are active in patrolling policy pages. Is there not a central page or project to oversee policy pages? Carcharoth 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, technically if they're removing the tag then the admin that puts it back may not protect the page even if there is a clearly established consensus that the tag should be there (this, arguably, is a flaw in the protection policy). We don't actually have a formal system for making/accepting/historicalizing/rejecting proposals (although it's been argued that we need one, I haven't seen any workable proposals as yet) so I'm not sure how one would need a formal system for "un-rejecting". Basically, that would only encourage vexatious litigation, as in my experience a user who wants to re-open a rejected page (as opposed to a "historical" page) has always been wrong. There is no central page per se, but I use CAT:PRO and CAT:G a lot, plus I've been around long enough that I tend to know where to find stuff. Policy pages tend to be watchlisted by several dozen admins, at the least. >Radiant< 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose a new general criterion 

message: This proposal reminds me that I recently declined to speedy a rejected proposal that technically met G7, but had relevant talk page discussion about why the proposal was rejected. Is an exception to G7 necessary for this, or are other admins declining those speedies anyway?--Kchase T 12:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejected proposals should not be deleted. They should be marked as rejected, with the reasons given on the talk page or at an MfD, and then used to educate new users or anyone who comes up with the same idea in the future. It speeds enculturation and prevents people reinventing the wheel. Carcharoth 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, G7 needs clarification following this debate. Carcharoth 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then they are edit warring. If they persist, protect the page and force them to follow a "re-opening proposal" procedure. We have this for requested moves, so why not have a formal process to move stuff from proposal to accepted/rejected back to proposal, even further back to user space, or even upwards to guideline or policy? This way, a lot of policy/guideline discussion, which is currently scattered over umpteen Wikipedia talk: pages, could be centralised and organised. You are active in patrolling policy pages. Is there not a central page or project to oversee policy pages? Carcharoth 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, technically if they're removing the tag then the admin that puts it back may not protect the page even if there is a clearly established consensus that the tag should be there (this, arguably, is a flaw in the protection policy). We don't actually have a formal system for making/accepting/historicalizing/rejecting proposals (although it's been argued that we need one, I haven't seen any workable proposals as yet) so I'm not sure how one would need a formal system for "un-rejecting". Basically, that would only encourage vexatious litigation, as in my experience a user who wants to re-open a rejected page (as opposed to a "historical" page) has always been wrong. There is no central page per se, but I use CAT:PRO and CAT:G a lot, plus I've been around long enough that I tend to know where to find stuff. Policy pages tend to be watchlisted by several dozen admins, at the least. >Radiant< 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected project pages under G7

message: I've expanded the admin guidelines as follows: "Please also check to see if there is ongoing discussion in progress on the talk page, and assess whether the talk page discussion should be moved or archived to a new location." - this follows from the reasoning that there is sometimes useful content on talk pages. Of course, most stuff deleted under CSD doesn't have talk pages, but that doesn't mean that talk pages shouldn't be checked when they exist. Carcharoth 17:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin guidelines tweaked 

message: It is not uncommon for articles to be speedied as re-creations of deleted content, even when the original article was only speedied the first time (i.e., it never passed through XfD or any other formal process). Would it be OK to reword G4 to make it very clear that it does *not* apply to anything that has not passed through a formal deletion discussion? -- Visviva 06:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean something like "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions..."?  I'm not sure how much clearer we could be.  Rossami (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could be a lot clearer.  I'm strongly in favor of rewording for the purposes of clarification both G4 and G8.  I'm seeing radically different interpetatons of wikipedia's policies on deleting talk pages.  Mathiastck 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of G4 

message: Can we add other "unremarkable" items to this list, such as "objects and entities".
I'm looking at a speedy delete request for a fairly unremarkable object (a guitar model which has a particular given name because some musician uses it), but although articles on unremarkable "people, groups, companies and web content" which don't appear to establish importance are listed in A7, "objects" and "other kinds of unremarkable things" don't. Is this an omission? FT2 (Talk | email) 11:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to expand it further.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Jeff here.  It's hard to judge that kind of thing objectively.  I don't even support the "companies" or "web sites" inclusion for the same reason. Mangojuicetalk 14:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I've seen some very detailed and serious bios of people's pets. Clearly such articles should be speedied, but without an expansion (or very liberal interpretation) of A7, there isn't really a criterion that fits. It's not incoherent nonsense. Fan-1967 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God forbid we have to AfD it, after all.  Or prod! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it means that a man-hour is spent on nominating, commenting, and closing each such AfD that is invariably deleted... —Centrx→talk • 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that's a "man hour" well spent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have to agree with Jeff.  I understand the frustration when it feels like we're spending more time and energy cleaning up after junk than it took to create it.  But we've learned the hard way that speedy-deletion cases are too often stretched and that whenever they are we spend many more hours arguing over it than if we'd just let the process run its course in the first place.  Speedy-deletion cases are narrowly written and work best when we continue to interpret them narrowly.  Send the rest to AFD.  Rossami (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't agree with classifying an article about ones pet with vandalism. Misuse yes, but for me vandalism implies something intentionally damaging, more than that. A bit like recklessness v. naivety maybe? My thought was along the lines that if we are saying that some things can be speedied for non-remarkability, why not just make that the criteria for A7 - "Things that are unremarkable and non-notable, and have a virtually zero possibility of ever becoming otherwise." Or, looking at it rhetiorically, is that a degree of judgement that one should not expect a reviewing admin to have? FT2 (Talk | email) 08:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think G3 has an implied degree of judgement in it.  It's a question of WP:AGF whether or not you classify a clear misuse like that as malicious.  I think we can expect even a newcomer to understand the purpose of Wikipedia better than that.  At best, such people probably think they're being funny.  Mangojuicetalk 10:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, or they're trying to get away with it. Misuse either way. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much of it, the bios of selves, family, friends or pets, or articles about the local softball team they're on, is not malicious. It goes back to new editors who frankly have no idea what Wikipedia is, and think it's a free-expression blog. They frequently have no idea that it's not appropriate. Fan-1967 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No. A7 has already been illegitimately expanded several times despite the original proposal being extremely limited in scope, and misused on a regular basis for deleting new/small pages. Take it to prod if you believe it's a slamdunk; they still have a high "success" rate. I also an unconvinced by the "G3" option for pages made in good faith, if ignorance. Vandalism must show intent. -- nae'blis 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 criteria 

message: Ugh, what a mess. I used to find my way around templates much faster, but somehow now I can't find in which page the  and related have been put, so I am bringing it here. Templates like that one must have been created thinking in the 14 days copyright timeframe, where an editor had 2 weeks to prove he is the owner of copyright. Right now, that kind of templates is being used when G12 is applied (blatant copyright violation). The instructions in the template state that the user should make a note in the article talk page to confirm he has the copyright permission. However, since the articles are being speedy deleted, this causes new users to create talk pages of deleted articles that will never be read. Can we have a full review of templates with similar problems ( comes to my mind) and consider a new approach to this issue? Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio templates

message: As you may have noticed, the criteria for speedy deletion for images or media are different to all the other criteria in that many of them include time delays, periods during which an image or media page must be tagged with some template or another for a certain number of days before the image can be deleted. This is in contrast to the criteria for, say, articles, which allow immediate deletion (hence "speedy deletion"). The reasons for including these time delays were historically sound: before June last year, it was not possible to undelete image or media files once they had been deleted. However, we now have this feature, which means there is no longer a good reason for having time delays in the criteria.
I propose that:
* All time delays be removed from the image/media criteria;
* Adjustments be made to the criteria if it is not desirable to make those criteria "true" speedy deletion criteria (that is, to allow immediate deletion), but rather desirable to replace them with WP:IFD or another process.
Discuss. --bainer (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some large category of images to be deleted, the time delay serves to allow the image uploader time to respond to a request for licensing (or other required) info. In those cases, the image should be kept for a little while (5 to 10 days), to allow the uploader to see which image has been tagged. However, if the uploader (or someone else) doesn't respond within a certian time, then deletion should be automatic. Argyriou (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should this be the case for images and not, say, articles? The upload form provides ample opportunity for the uploader to enter information about images, and the requirements for sources and licencing information have been in place for a very long time. In any event, since we now have image undeletion, if an uploader provides source or licencing information after the image has been deleted then the image can be undeleted and the information updated. --bainer (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we're going to allow users to upload images without licensing information, we should give them a reasonable chance to reply to copyright concerns. Speedy deletion is often too quick in borderline cases. If unlicensed images are that big a problem, then perhaps we could change the workings of the upload page so that the first three options don't allow the image to upload at all. Which I would support - better to not let those images onto Wikipedia at all, than to delete them after the fact. But so long as we don't mechanically require licensing info, we should allow users a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem. Argyriou (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles deletion notifications are biased towards nomination of junk articles and hoping the 'kid' (sic) misses the edit and tagging. Historically, AfD would rather not have the battle over cruft and such since a groupie can ask his friends to join the affair, and etc. Frankly, this has always struck me as against the spirit of AGF and CIV, not to mention a few other high minded pillars of the community but it's a pragmatic compromise in place most of us cynically comprehend, if not like. Personally, I'd rather see a quorum requirement (30 votes min.) with qualified voting priviledges on all Xfd's and speedy deletion curtailed solely to articles, as there is little reason to bother departing from a deliberative process on other Xfd's. Pifffle on template redundancy, for example--if a more complicated template is difficult to use, we're supposed to get rid of one that's user friendly? How does that help the editor struggling for time enough to deal with article content? Same with empty or redundant categories--most of those would be better handled like the commons does--just tag them with a soft redirect using  and leave a clue for others so the error doesn't get perpetuated, repeated, or become contentious. These things can all wait, as they aren't out in main space readily available to the customer-readers. <Shrug>. <g> I'm not the emperor of the universe, alas!   On the images front, Jimbo himself set the policy in place with help, a rare but hopeful event. I'd suggest a five day speedy wait period provided the uploader is notified by email. Many of us get busy in real life and leave wikipedia for extended periods, so may miss a talk posting. Five days is a possibly not enough, but the gesture is there, and it's a reasonable compromise figure assuming a long weekend or other holiday factor. The fixed number might be modified by building an international table of holidays to add to the time span, but it'd be simpler to just stay with a long time period from the outset.   OTOH, since undeletion is now available for images, it is a simple matter to have the page restored, as I have had done when one disappeared whilst I was off in RL last fall. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that Argyriou is on the right track; so long as we allow uploads without specifying a copyright status, there should be a time delay.  And I suspect that requiring a specification would lead to an increase in erroneous specifications.  In theory my suspiciion is testable, given a lot of effort.  GRBerry 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time delays in image/media criteria 

message: There are distinct problems as far as New Pages Patrol is concerned in A7 is removed or altered too much. At the moment, A7 is very much a fence at the top of the cliff stopping the ambulances at the bottom (AfD and prod) becoming so overloaded as to be unusable. I'd say that 10-20% of newly created articles are vanity articles or otherwise easily fail A7. Remove or alter A7 too much, and all of those articles - potentially hundreds per day - will haveto be deleted via other means. To solve this problem, I would like to suggest that perhaps a time limit be placed on A7, rather than any significant changes to the spirit of the wording. This could be achieved by simply making it something like "This article is less than one month old and does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If it can survive scrutiny for a month, chances are someone at least thought it was worth keeping, so should go through the AfD process. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal does not address the problem that some significantly large percentage of A7 deletions are wrong, and that the criterion is impossibly subjective. New Pages Patrol draws people who are more likely to err on the side of deletion; we don't need to give them something which could be used against almost any article, particularly those written by newer editors, who may not know how to complain, and leave in frustration. Argyriou (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If hundreds per day go to PROD/AfD, this may not be as big a problem as people think.  Just my two cents. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The goal of A7 is not to delete non-notable articles on sight. I am surprised you think it is. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A7 does not allow deletion of non-notable articles, but this seems to be the intention of its spirit, or at the very least its application. I've rarely heard anyone argue that the actual point of A7 is to force article writers to provide evidence of notability for the sake of article quality. Deco 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not all mistaken A7s get overturned at Deletion Review. Plenty of others get overturned when the author contacts the deleting admin and makes a case. Probably more would be if fewer admins had a tendency to stick to their decisions in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Argyriou (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The evidence above suggests it.  Less tendentious editing, more reading please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, Argy, I'm aware that that happens, but that does not constitute "some significantly large percentage". >Radiant< 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The evidence above constitutes "some significantly large percentage."  That's why I'm putting my reply below yours - on a public talk page, it's imperitave that you know where to look to get the information. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: **Jeff, I'm really not interested in your perennial attacks on this matter. That's why I'm asking Argyriou, not you. >Radiant< 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **Just making sure you know where to find the information you need. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A second alternative

message: I went and looked again at User:Mangojuice/a7. First off, I noticed that many of the A7s would probably qualify under G11. There seems to be one big defect that many of the non-notable vanity articles have, and that's a lack of source material. Articles may qualify under A7 by saying "Joe Blow is a champion cocaine snorter, and won the Lower Manhattan Snorting Championships in 1992.", but not actually providing any proof.
So, as I see it, the problems are: 
*AfD is too crowded already. 
*A7 is too subjective.
*Speedy deletion makes it difficult to repair salvageable articles in time.
*Speedy deletion of an article which isn't simply bandcruft can sour new editors on Wikipedia, as it is really not clear where to go to ask for help or complain.
*Too many articles merely assert, but don't support, notability.
So, instead of a speedy delete for A7, we create something like , where in the case of a probably non-notable person, we require someone to add sources to support the assertion of notability. If no source is provided within one week, it gets deleted. Unlike prod, the proposed  would not be removable (in the same sense an AfD tag is not removable). The template would do all the category and date things which prod does, so that admins could look for articles which hadn't provided sources and delete them without going to AfD. 
Hopefully, a mechanism like this would take care of the four problems I listed above. I think we'd see a lot of band articles deleted under G11 instead, but that doesn't bother me so much. Argyriou (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I'm reinventing the wheel. I'd go for proposed text #1 or #2, but not #3 or #4, provided that A7 was removed from WP:CSD. Argyriou (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another option