Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 15

message: I'm slightly confused by this. Technically, this can be circumvented by someone having a list of images that they want to view as a gallery (even maintaining it off-wiki), and then, when they want to view the gallery (usually for maintenance purposes, eg. how good is the coverage in this particular area, can we use these images in a better way, etc), the user can temporarily stick the list up in the correct format, with the gallery tags around them. And then remove it again after a few hours, when the work is completed. Is this acceptable? I assume that U3 is aimed at permanent galleries, but even in the case where gallerisation is undone, the gallery version will still be available in the page history, so a user could save a page with a link to that version, and they could then look at the gallery whenever they wanted. An example of this, not in userspace, but in a WikiProject, is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Images. I would guess other WikiProjects have similar pages. The one that usually springs to mind is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Images. Carcharoth 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realise that. What I am talking about (and I wasn't very clear, admittedly), is the temporary use of Wikipedia to produce a gallery of fair use images for selection purposes (think of it like spreading out a set of photos on a table to pick the one you want to use). ie. To compare a range of potentially fair use images and select the one to use for a particular article. Actually, the selection criteria should probably be based more on which one is the "fairest" use, I guess, if that makes any sense (with the obligatory disclaimer of no free images being available). I was also making the point that galleries can be 'hidden' in a page history, and thus anyone who has the link to that version of the page, effectively has this gallery available to look at whenever they want. But with so many other skeletons rattling around in page histories, I guess this is not a major problem. Carcharoth 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *True, but that selection process does not appear to be the main usage of userspace galleries. If individual history items become really problematic, we can oversight them. >Radiant< 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U3 (galleries in userspace) 

message: Why is there a template by that name in :Category:Speedy deletion templates ? --ArmadilloFromHell 06:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not there now.  Seems to have been some kind of error. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very strange, it was for sure there yesterday and I refreshed the page at the time. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave Abrahams

message: This edit "simplified" blogs, podcasts, webcomic, etc. to "website", which could be seen as more restrictive (I'm thinking of, for example, non-notable videos that exist on sites like YouTube and that occasionally are promoted improperly here). A quick glance of this page and recent archives doesn't turn up discussion of this change, and  still reflects the more expansive version. So I'm guessing that the restriction from "web content" to "website" wasn't fully intended. Am I missing something? — TKD::Talk 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7: Websites or web content? 

message: From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material
"Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6)."
A small fix seems to be in order. Brimba 18:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it over there, it now points to G10. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh A6, where art thou?

message: User talk pages aren't speediable per CSD U1, right?  I'm seeing this a lot lately (and I always decline the deletion), but maybe I'm wrong?  Perhaps the language needs to be clarified.  -- Merope 13:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends.  The foundation does recognize a limited right to vanish.  On the other hand, if the user's talk page includes extensive documentation of vandalism warnings, we almost always perserve those as evidence.  Even blanking those pages can be considered abusive.  Can you give some specific examples that you found problematic?  Rossami (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm all about right to vanish, but I don't think these are associated with that.  Here are a few ones I've noticed:  User talk:Mihai cartoaje, User talk:138.130.165.178... uh, I'm sure there are more but it's hard for me to dig through my contributions.  I'm discounting db tags left by users other than the owner of the talk page, which comes up more frequently.  -- Merope 14:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would never delete (or even wipe) an anon page.  If the user is upset by the comments left there, tell him/her to create an ID and sign in.  They'll never need to see the comments on the anon page again.  In fact, it says just that in the default text at the top of every anon talk page.  User:Mihai cartoaje is a more difficult case.  I can find no evidence that the user intends to leave the project.  The user also added an apparent death threat at the top of his/her own page, making me suspicious of the user's commitment to the project.  If the user wants to turn over a new leaf, I'd recommend allowing him/her to archive the page into page history (that is, blank the page but do so with an explicit "archiving" comment so that others can find the old comments if necessary).  There is, however, no easy answer.  Just use your best judgment and continue to ask for help from other experienced editors when appropriate.  Thanks for your help patroling these requests.  Rossami (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to clarify - CSD U1 

message: Hello. A quick question. Kent class cruiser/Temp has already been suggested for speedy deletion, but was changed to a merge and later a redirect. However, I really doubt anyone would ever type that in a search box, and the history content is made of mostly clean up stuff. Could the article be deleted under G6? I kind of don't like having that article in my watchlist, appearing from time to time. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Centrx→talk • 00:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now undone.  No, that did not qualify under the "housekeeping" criterion.  We have an obligation to track all the attribution of all contributions under the conditions of GFDL.  You may consider all those changes to be "mostly clean up stuff" and I may even agree with that judgment call but that does not relieve Wikipedia from the obligations of GFDL.  Making the judgment call about whether those obligations have been met is beyond the scope of CSD.  Redirects are cheap.  This particular redirect does no apparent harm.  If there is a pattern of abuse, the redirect can be protected but I see no such pattern since the page was turned into a redirect.  Rossami (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the temp page was never merged, its information is redundant, and it shows up as the first result for a search for "Kent cruiser". —Centrx→talk • 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just wondering, with that kind of thought, WP:AFD is completely illegal. -- ReyBrujo 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inappropriate content can be deleted. It is content that is retained that must be fully attributable under the GFDL. But that is also problematic, as people often do cut-and-paste copying without thinking about the consequences. An interesting exercise is to sit down with an article like Human and try and work out who contributed which bit. Sometimes a piece of text that appears to have been contributed by User Y, was in fact written by User X in another article, and copied and pasted into the article by User Y. Technically GFDL has been satisfied for User Y, but GFDL has not been satisfied for User X. User X's writing has been mercilesly edited and redistributed, but the attribution to User X has been lost. Happens a lot, unfortunately. Carcharoth 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  According to a comment on the temp page's edit history (edit summary on 14 Oct), the contents were merged.  I have no reason to distrust that comment but if you have evidence to the contrary, that could change things.  As to whether this line of logic makes the AFD process illegal, I mostly disagree.  The presumption of AFD is that the content is irredeemable and that presumably it would not have been moved to or used in any other article before deletion.  As Carcharoth says, some may fall through the cracks but we try not to let that happen.  If we discover a situation where that did happen, there is a process to allow a history-only undeletion to satisfy the requirements of GFDL.  Rossami (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kent class cruiser/Temp 

message: The quick reference at :CAT:CSD lists "I8: Attack Images" and "I9: Identical on Commons" while there is no longer an I9 at here. We should probably change one or the other so they coincide. Why didn't we leave I8 as (This criterion has been superseded by G10 and is kept for historical reasons.) and keep I9 at I9, as we did with A6? Hope this makes sense,  DVD+ R/W 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick reference (I8 & I9) 

message: WP:NDT says, "When spotted, such templates tend to be speedily deleted because they're similar to templates we've debated and deleted in the past."  However, the only thing CSD says about templates is, "divisive and inflammatory".  Are disclaimer templates considered divisive and inflammatory?  If so, perhaps that could be clarified.  Otherwise, maybe "disclaimer template" should be added to CSD.  I realize that NDT is merely a guideline, but it seems silly to go through a prod or TfD discussion when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  Nevertheless, I don't feel comfortable adding db to :Template:Warning Upsetting without a clear CSD.  Am I being overly cautious?  The only argument I can think of against adding "disclaimer template" as a CSD is that it may not be obvious whether a given template is a disclaimer template, and that strikes me as unlikely.  Xtifr tälk 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a broad application of CSD:G4. Non-ideal, but we'll live with it I suspect. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! I didn't even think of searching through the general criteria for one that might apply.  I feel very silly now.  Thanks! :)  Xtifr tälk 06:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer templates 

message: Can a better example be provided for I7 please?  It's not clear enough to me what is covered by it.  Thanks.  jd || talk || 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I7 

message: Shouldn't this be transcluded onto the page so that users and admins can easily place it on their user pages for quick reference?  Like, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates? Cbrown1023 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be bold and change it. Cbrown1023 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion templates|Deletion templates]] 

message: I just changed:
:The page does not have substantial edits by multiple users and there are no non-infringing revisions in the page history worth saving.
to
:The page does not have substantial non-copyvio content in the page history worth saving.
The earlier verstion seemed a bit vague, and could be taken to mean that if a copyvio has been rewritten a bit, maybe moved around, wikified, a typo fixed, that it's not a copyvio anymore. Copyvio content should be purged from the page history if possible. However, with pre-existing or older articles, usually what was copy and pasted has had new introductions added, and otherwise substantial new content written around it. So rather than delete the whole thing, I think we need to clarify that practice is to delete the copyvio but leave the rest, if it can stand on its own as an article (even if it's just a short stub).
If nothing else, I think the new wording is more clear but still has the same meaning. --W.marsh 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this should be that no previous version meets any of the csd (including g12 but not limited to). But changing in that sense would probably be too pedantic. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, if the parameter is to be "exactly what is meant" then it would be something like "the article was clearly not created organically on the wiki" and if the parameter is to be "what they should be checking" then the multiple users is good, and perhaps even more specific instructions. Many admins really have no idea how to check a page. —Centrx→talk • 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you're talking about. Your recent edit to what I was working on looks good, removing redundancy and all, but the added rule "The infringement was introduced at once by a single person; it was not developed organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Wikipedia mirrors." seems like instruction creep. If it's a copyvio, obviously the original uploader to WP copied it without permission, not the other way around. Admins make mistakes but I doubt any of us actually think it's a copyvio on Wikipedia if another site copies us without permission. --W.marsh 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is to help identify whether the website copied it from Wikipedia. Copyvios on Wikipedia are invariably from a single person adding it (except for some rare hypothetical possibilities), so the first part ("introduced at once...") is how that is checked for while the second part ("developed organically...") is the actual specific reason why that is checked for. This was the purpose of the 48 hour requirement and the purpose of the "not have substantial edits by multiple users" wording. —Centrx→talk • 20:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this can give the false impression that we should keep a copyvio if it's been rewritten slightly (by multiple editors, developed organically, etc). That's not good. Something either is a copyvio or it isn't... admins are sometimes going to make mistakes. I don't think we're going to eliminate human error by just adding more and more potentially confusing rules. Admins should determine if something is a copyvio, that's part of deleting a copyvio. --W.marsh 20:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The parameter applies if the infringing text was introduced en masse. Perhaps "developed" could be changed to "created", but "there was some on-wiki development" is not the same as "created on wiki". —Centrx→talk • 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my recent G12 change 

message:  automatically places pages into :Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion. Since copyright violations are just as big a concern, would it be a good idea to do the same kind of thing with ? I suspect this could be useful in a few different ways, assuming :Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion is itself useful. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might even be useful if the cat sortkey in CAT:CSD was a letter representing the deletion criterion rather than the name of the page; that way it would be possible to tell which db-tag had been used from the CAT:CSD page. --ais523 08:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like that idea much.  In practice, most of the speedy deletions are only in a couple of the categories.  I like the list being alphabetical; the breaks in it help me keep my place.  I do like the idea, though, of giving every CSD its own category, so those who want to browse by category could do so.  I especially like that this might help us create :Category:Candidates for speedy deleteion, criterion unspecified, because most such pages are bad speedy tags.  Mangojuicetalk 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like it could have the risk of causing admins to ignore a lot of delete requests. It's true that a lot of them are spurious, but I still use  myself and I think I know how to use the tags (in most cases; I can go dig up some examples otherwise if I'm on trial here). I'd rather make categories that underline the urgency of things – this seems like it would diminish importance.It would be an easy thing to set up and I kind of support it, but I think it would be "abused". Do the existing prefab db-* templates really cover all the necessary bases? That's the main question for me. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Last time I checked, the db-attack template placed the page both in CAT:CSD and the attack page subcategory; presumably it's so that people could clear out the evil/mean attack pages first, if the category is busting at the seams. I agree that any other examples of this should double-categorize. -- nae'blis 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion]] 

message: There are a bunch of images tagged for speedy deletion because they use an "educational and non-commercial only" license. The strange thing is that these images were recently uploaded and they have no other edits to them besides the upload. I went to the upload page and, incredibly, there is an option for educational and non-commercial only, although is under the invalid heading. I'm guessing that choosing that option and then uploading the image automatically puts the picture in the speedy deletion category. This is bizarre, to me. Why do we let people upload pictures under that license? The only thing that I can guess is that it is so they do not choose a different license, and this way allows the images to be automatically tagged for deletion (putting the license under the invalid heading interferes with this plan, though, since people may chose a different one because of it). However, it gives people the impression license is okay, if they do not notice or do not understand the "invalid" in the menu and do not scroll down on the image page to see the speedy deletion notice (even if they do scroll down, there is a good chance it will confuse the hell out of them since the license is a choice on the upload page). Also, even if they do notice and understand the "invalid", they might think that it is a mistake since the upload still works. 
Another crazy thing is the extra work that is created for admins who do speedy deletions. Even if you want to use this confusing system, you could just have the images deleted automatically by a bot, with or without a delay. The images should be in a separate category, too, so they do not clog up the main one.  
There is also a much simpler system. You could have the license still be an option, but when the person tries to upload the image, it does not work and an error message explains that such images are not allowed and has a link for more information. The error message could show up on the upload page or the browser could be redirected to an error page. Finally, you could put an explicit notice on the upload page about not being able to use images with that license with a link for more information. -- Kjkolb 09:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, if you do that, people will just choose a different and inaccurate licence, like public domain or GFDL. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which suggestion(s) are you referring to? -- Kjkolb 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion of blocking the upload if an invalid licence is chosen. Many people just want the picture in there and they will go back and choose another licence until they find one which will let them upload it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I brought this up on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions a month ago; I understand what people are saying about people using illegitimate licenses if they're stymied, but it doesn't make ANY sense to put the invalid licenses first on the drop-down list. We're often tired of long EULA pages and instruction sheets, and the earlier something is on a list, the more likely we are to pick it IMO. Put these at the bottom and you'll cut at least some of the problem, since a true fix would require software changes. Some people actually think our upload server is not working right because their image keeps disappearing. -- nae'blis 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the deal with the educational and non-commercial license speedy candidates? 

message: Hi, I'm want to put  to this page: Source four, because the subject is copyrighted product name and all of its sources are taken from here: . Is this a blatant copyvio? I want to ask first, because this is my first time to put an article into speedy deletion and usually I'm not a deletionist. Thanks in advance. — Indon (reply) — 15:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, nowhere close.  Names of products are not copyrighted: they may have trademarks, but trademarks can be freely used as long as it's not in a disparaging way, or in a way that attempts to pass one product off as another.  And it doesn't matter where the sources come from as much as whether or not the article is a direct copy of information found elsewhere.  I actually don't see anything wrong with that page, I think it shouldn't be deleted for this reason, nor for any other reason.  Mangojuicetalk 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, you're the expert. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this copyvio? 

message: Hey, would it be a good idea to add to the bottom of the  template, "Please consider adding ? This would go on the user talk page and would be a strong deterrent to these attack pages. Take a look at the template.Diez2 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added  to the template, which I believe covers what you're asking for. EVula 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Er, what does the template say?Diez2 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be added in.  But I generally indefblock people for creating attack pages anyway.  It's a pretty bad sort of harassment.--Konst.ableTalk 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the parser function should be removed from that template. If used, the warning provides an evident record of defamation having occurred against a named person.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:attack-warn]] 

message: I just noticed that while the criteria in CSD:G12 require only 
Blatant copyright infringement which meets these parameters:
* Material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia;
* There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving.
* The infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Wikipedia mirrors.
* Uploader does not assert permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable;
the corresponding section in Wikipedia:Copyright problems says:
Blatant copyright infringements of commercial sources may now be "speedied"
If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (directly engaged in making money from the content) and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted.
After notifying the uploading editor, add 
:
An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.
Clearly these are out of sync, in that the WP:CP version requires also the the material be "copied from the website of a commercial content provider (directly engaged in making money from the content)", but that is not in G12. My memory of how copyvio-speedys evolved is hazy, and I can't seem to find the right diffs, but wasn't it the case that the commercial content provider was originally part of G12, and then dropped? If so, the language over at WP:CP should probably be updated. Or do I have this wrong? --MCB 05:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The commercial content provision was changed a long time ago. I have updated WP:CP. —Centrx→talk • 05:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See Jimbo's diff here , and this seems to be in line with we've been hearing from Brad and Danny. --W.marsh 05:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you both! I wanted a reality check before just changing WP:CP myself. Best, --MCB 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G12 and [[WP:CP]] are inconsistent with each other 

message: I'm just wondering if some user posts his resume a) as a main space article or b) as his userpage would it be speedily deletable under CSD G11? MER-C 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past, we've userfied such pages when people posted them in the mainspace. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really think we should be a resume service. Delete it through A7 if it's really just a generic resume of some guy trying to get a job. But if it's more of an official resume type thing of someone with notable accomplishments, it really just needs style editting, unless they don't meet WP:BIO. --W.marsh 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If a résumé is posted in the main article space, it should be speedily deleted as G11. If its in user space, it should be removed (with a warning for the editor). Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page? notes that "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia" shouldn't be in a user's space. There's also a quote there from Jimbo that says "... using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea..." I suppose a résumé could be considered campaigning for someone, I suppose, although the quote from Jimbo is taken a bit of context in this case. EVula 19:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a practical matter, I think userfying stuff like that is a good example of harm reduction, in that it is less likely to be re-created in article space, esp. by a confused user (who does not understand the distinction). That cuts down on the time wasted in further deletions, warnings, etc. If the user goes on to become a real editor, they'll probably fix their page at some point. And if not, and they don't do any more editing, the page can be deleted later as an abandoned uer page. --MCB 20:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to be practical, nip such things in the bud by deleting them so users don't get the wrong idea and start posting resumes en masse, explaining enough to the user so they don't do it again. To do otherwise invites (by precedent) further and further deviation from what's acceptable behaviour and dilutes the project's focus. --Improv 13:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Resume]] == G11 spam? 

message: Any objections to adding an optional XFD discussion link parameter to  (an example is here)? Apologies if this has been discussed before – I didn't find such a conversation in a quick search. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:db-repost|db-repost]]}} parameter 

message: The policy on recreation of deleted material currently reads as follows (emphasis mine):
:Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space.
What is the rationale for allowing users to keep copies of deleted articles in userspace?  I can see a few possibilities for abuse here.  For example, say someone creates a vanity article for a company with the hope of promoting it on their website ("Look how famous I am!  I'm on Wikipedia!") or using it to boost their search engine ranking for a particular search term.  (As we know, Google tends to rank Wikipedia articles quite highly, and Wikipedia is mirrored extensively, increasing the chances that the vanity article will come up in a web search.)  The article gets deleted, but a Wikipedia user (possibly with an interest in the company) makes an identical copy as a user subpage.  Therefore the page will continue to fulfulling its original vanity purpose: it will continue to be mirrored and indexed by search engines, and it will continue to be linked from the company's website (fooling a significant portion of Internet users who don't know the difference between mainspace and userspace). —Psychonaut 06:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userspace undeletion may be allowed for proper transwikiing, examining the contents of deleted articles that possibly should not have or a space where the author can address the concerns raised in the deletion debate. See WP:DRV. MER-C 08:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I can actually see this being useful. If a topic is non-notable, it could be moved into userspace (or, if the author worked on it offline, they can recreate it from their copy) and continuously worked on (adding sources and citations and such) until the time that the topic is notable. EVula 15:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted content recreated in userspace 

message: Just a quick note to check whether this bullet point in G12 is easily understandable:
*"The infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Wikipedia mirrors."
I'm not sure that this bit is as clear as it could be. What do people think this is trying to say (if people disagree, then the wording will need to be changed). Carcharoth 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. What about: "* The infringement was entered as a block of text by a single user (rather than created organically on Wikipedia and then copied by a mirror site, which can lead to false positives)." Probably still too wordy, but preserves all of the original intent, I think. -- nae'blis 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one thing this, or the first version, fails to make clear is that copying of Wikipedia's material is not only done by mirror sites. Sometimes you have mirror sites that correctly attribute the material to Wikipedia. Sometimes you have mirror sites which fail to attribute their material to Wikipedia. And then you have sites which selectively copy only a few articles, and claim it as something they wrote. The important point is not whether the site is a mirror, but who originally wrote the material (with mirrors being one of the subsequent considerations after asking the initial question of who wrote the material), and whether the website in question is either (a) claiming Wikipedia wrote the material; (b) not saying who wrote the material; or (c) claiming that they themselves wrote the material. Also, I've just noticed that the wording prejudices the reader by saying "the infringement" rather than "the suspected infringement". Carcharoth 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehension check (G12) 

message: Having another look at G12, which seems a bit bloated, I think I'd be right to say that the aim is to allow speedy deletion of any blatant copyright violation, but we need to define what we mean by "blatant". How about the wording I've put in the header at WP:CP?
*"A copyright violation can be considered 'blatant' if the material was copied from an established website in contravention of a genuine copyright notice. If you are not sure who originally wrote the material, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead for investigation.""
Is that clear enough? I think three of the current bullet points are rare exceptions that are all covered by the above, and could be dealt with at WP:CP: (1) the website has a GFDL-compatible licence allowing redistribution with attribution; (2) the copyright holder gives permission for redistribution  and editing via Wikipedia; (3) the page history shows that the content was created at Wikipedia. The final bullet point reminds people that the correct action after establishing that this is indeed a blatant copyvio, can be either to speedy delete, or to revert to a version before the copyvio was introduced. Carcharoth 20:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to me, this is still trying to legislate common sense, why would you delete something as a copyvio if you weren't reasonably sure it was a copyvio? Also, what is an "established" website? Totally subjective. Jimbo's goal was to make it easier to get rid of copyvios... making the wording more complicated and potentially confusing runs contrary to that. --W.marsh 21:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the whole point! The wording has to say blatant copyvio, because there are cases where it is not clear whether something is a copyvio. You are assuming that everyone knows what a blatant copyvio is, and that is not a reasonable assumption to be making. Carcharoth 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you're understanding me. I'm not opposed to explaining what a blatant copyvio is, but codifying some arbitrary process that admins are required to follow to make sure something's a copyvio ("make sure the page is organic", "make sure it's not copied from an established website", etc.) is just going to make it confusing and lead to situations where an admin knows something is a copyvio, but feel like the rules say he can't delete it. If the goal is to get rid of copyvios, the rule should just say "If you are reasonably sure something is a copyright violation, delete it" and then offer whatever other guidance is relevent. --W.marsh 22:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. With a link to somewhere explaining the common pitfalls and useful tips for someone trying to decide if something is a copyvio? Carcharoth 11:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure... but I'm not sure if such a page exists already for us to link to or not, there are a lot of copyright pages on Wikipedia. --W.marsh 14:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More G12 stuff 

message: Regarding recent deletions of "replaceable" images under I7, have a look here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Deletion of promotional photos for a proposal.--Konst.ableTalk 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal regarding a part of I7 

message: While browsing new pages I came accross one where the contributor was clearly confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia.  For discussions sake, the page was Sudanese doctors and the content was:
List of Sudanese Doctors
The main aim of this page is to give all Sudanese doctors, around the world, the opportunity of getting in touch with one another.
Hopefully this page will help in encouraging everyone to contribute and share one's experiences, ideas, and projects. As a result, we hope that our beloved people will get the benefit that we, as Sudanese doctors, all strive to give.
Thank you,
Nadir Galal Eldin
Obviously not suitable for Wikipedia, but I didn't think it met any of the speedy criteria so I prodded it, giving "Wikipedia is not a social networking site" as my reason.  Now, keep in mind that the first item under non-criteria is "Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not".  I left a nice little note on the contributor's talk page explaining what Wikipedia is and isn't, and while I was doing that someone came along and put a speedy tag on the article above the prod citing G11 as the speedy criteria.
Now, obviously the thing needs to go.  But, it's not really blatent advertising.  It's far more what Wikipedia is not.  But I guess it's sort of advertising, sort of, maybe, kind of, a little.  You could maybe say it exists to provide a service... but I think that's stretching it a little.
Anyway, what about instances like that where a page just doesn't quite fit any of the speedy criteria but patently doesn't belong in Wikipedia?  Why aren't violations of WP:NOT speediable? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, that's exactly what WP:PROD is for -- articles that are not speediable under the existing CSDs, but are otherwise manifestly unencylopedic. --MCB 19:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but it'd already been prod'ed... ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its already been prod'd, WP:AFD is the only other stop. Shell babelfish 19:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification:what to do when an article doesn't fit into a nice, neat box. 

message: Is it only me who sees:
== Criteria ==u r such a freaking tard!!!!!! People sometimes use abbreviations to refer to these criteria (e.g. "A3" meaning articles, criterion 3), but for the sake of clarity this is not recommende
on the page!
It is weird since it does not appear on the edit text and it was supposely removed by an AntiVandal bot in the last edit!
I'm Confused...
:No, I saw it too.  I don't know why or how it happened, but I think I fixed it.  -- Merope 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals Text 

message: There was an image recently mentioned on AN/I. The image in question was originally uploaded with source information just saying it was an advert for a sporting brand. And tagged as . Since then the image has been retagged as . The image is used in an article on the person appearing in the poster, no mention is made of the sporting brand let alone the specific advert let alone critical discussion of the advert.
There was some debate concerning if this qualified for replaceable fairuse, the conclusion of which was that it was indeed replaceable, during which time the person who had tagged it as  stated they hadn't previously been aware of what that actually meant in this context (i.e. part of a press pack).
Since I had been part of that discussion I tagged the image as criteria I7, as it (a) is wrongly tagged and (b) fails the fairuse criteria regardless.
Another admin subsequently came along and removed that tag saying that the image would not be speedy deleted. Upon querying this the admin told me that we don't speedy delete images for failing our fair use criteria (We're busy enough on csd as it stands apparently). I pointed out CSD I7 and the plain wording of this and the admin then stated that it was only for certain specific situations and only if the image was tagged within 24 hours of upload. I pointed out again that the image clearly met the criteria as laid out in CSD I7 and the 24 hours seemed to not be mentioned anywhere. This then became that it could only be tagged I7 48 hours after the original uploader was notified of the issue and that I had to prove the image had never been included in the press pack. The former is not a big issue, the latter is of course impossible, it involves proving a negative. I challenged this but the admin is adamant that for I7 to apply I have to do the impossible and prove a negative.
Since I believe this image is well within the plain language of CSD I7 and indeed wikipedia is not a bureacracy, I cannot see how this doing the impossible can be part of the criteria. Since the I believe the other admin to be quite experienced and apparently reasonably confident of their position, rather than just ignoring that, informing the user in question and deleting the image in question in 48 hours time (assuming no further information is revealed in that time), I though yI'd ask for some broader input here. Am I missing the point here, do we indeed demand the impossible in such situations, are there other images which fail out fairuse criteria/are incorrectly tagged which are having CSD tags removed for this? --pgk 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without knowing what image was involved, neither I, nor I suspect anyone else, can make a call on the matter. There is no 24-hour requirement for CSD:I7, but if there is a dispute, then it is better to use  or similar. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't asking for anyone to make a call on the specific matter. The question was and is generic, hence the reasonably long description of the situation (with hindsight some being redundant, more setting the scene as to why I would question the other admins resolve). Is I7 redundant in certain cases as it requires doing the impossible? --pgk 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I7 says Any image or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a  tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time. Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria ... may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. Now, I think the 24 hours comment was the admin getting two different CSD criteria confused—I seem to remember a criterion that could only be applied to very new articles, but I can't find it now. As far as the jumping through hoops goes, if it fails any of the fair-use criteria than that's all that matters. CSD criteria should be read literally word-for-word from the CSD page, and carry no hidden requirements. What complicates this is that I7 makes reference to the fair use guideline which in turn refers to the publicity photos essay—essays and guidelines (and some if not most policy) are not meant to be taken so word-for-word as CSD is. Because of that, I wouldn't say you need to prove it is not part of a press pack. However, to show by the essay on publicity photos that the image fails at least one fair use criterion, you might have to make a pretty good arguement to the effect that the image is not likely part of a press pack. With all that in mind, justifying the CSD might be more work than nominating it for deletion by normal process, especially considering CSDs are much easier to dispute which means going through all the discussion and deliberation again via a deletion nom. I hope that helped. BigNate37(T) 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD I7 

message: Why is Wikipedia:Speedy deletions a separate page? --- RockMFR 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Speedy deletions is about the process, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is how to justify that process. If the former page didn't exist, people would know that an article meets the criteria for speedy deleted without knowing how to go about it. If the latter page didn't exist, people might suggest speedy deletes but would have no absolute guidelines to prove that an article should be speedy deleted. Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion in this way, serve different functions, and are thus are two pages and not one. Gracenotes T § 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Wikipedia:Speedy deletions should be renamed Wikipedia:Speedy deletion process, analogous to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Wikipedia:Deletion process.  If there are no objections, I propose to do that. --MCB 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is there is not much of a speedy deletion process, "Deletion process" is about deletion in general—including speedy deletion, and "speedy deletion" is already its own special meaning on Wikipedia, whereas "Deletion" needs something extra to describe it. —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we're going to nit-pick about pagenames, Wikipedia:Deletion process is really only about the process for closing a deletion nomination/discussion and for archiving that discussion.  It is not the overview of the entire process.  For that, you need to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.  Rossami (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a recent proposal to merge them and merged page at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion, but it never happened for some reason. —Centrx→talk • 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Speedy deletions 

message: I felt it was time to give the DB-templates a much-needed update. I have a version at User:TrackerTV/KXRM3. The new template can be hid and unhid, to help preserve space. The reason and first sentence of the old one are in the top, which is colored safety orange to attract attention. It takes up less room than the db-meta (at top, substed). Please tell me what you think! TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't like the possibility of hiding the text through a NavBar. The warning should always be shown, after all it is a critical notice that the article will be deleted in a matter of minutes. As for the color, at WikiProject Albums we changed the studio album color from orange to lightsteelblue because a user expressed it may trigger unhealthy reactions with a determined health condition. Personally, I like the template as it is now. I would heavily suggest, thought, to modify the different copyvio warnings, as they encourage creating talk pages without articles. -- ReyBrujo 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Color changed to pear-green, which still attracts attention, but also provides a better color for the text there. It won't be the periwinkle blue. This needs to stand out. I also suggest doing it for the AfD template. The hangon template would become a subset, where one could type in a second parameter. If it were activated, it would display the hangon template inside the navbox. I like these, as they do not intrude. Frankly, the current one pushes the article too far down, and we need to be an encyclopædia as well: if an article that is clearly notable, such as Pikachu for example, received a CSD tag, it could push the text of the article down. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a notable article received a deletion tag, the tag would most likely be removed rather quickly. Just a note. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A long-overdue revamp of the db-templates 

message: Hmm, unfortunate timing, and it's funny when presented here people missed the value and focused on possible negatives, whereas when presented at User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition the advantages were obvious. Thanks for the heads up Radiant. The only difference being the topic doesn't matter. It's hard to overestimate how valuable this will be in turning the tide towards properly sourcing articles. I just don't buy the arguments that it is newbie biting, we need to explain our policies to newbies all the time. This simply involves no longer looking the other way when articles fail to meet our key content policies. We are well past the time where we need just any content, we need reliable, sourced material. The issue of what meets a RS is also completely avoided by saying there isn't any discretion on that point. If there is a source, it doesn't meet the new CSD. - Taxman Talk 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested BLP Criterion section break 1

message: A9. Any article that was created after  insert date criterion gains consensus, has and has never had any references, and has been tagged with  for over 14 days, may be deleted without a discussion.
I've phrased it as a CSD here, but am open to other suggestions. This is a new section because it's no longer restricted to BLPs but applies to anything. Presumably this would use a big angry template that is places on the top of the article, with a corresponding User talk: warning template, saying something like "This article will be deleted unless sources are provided." (with more information below). As I said in the previous section, anons have to provide sources; why not users with usernames? --ais523 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A stronger version of the above 

message: An article, A is created without references by editor X, a specialist who understands the field and knows the sources.  It is noticed after a few months by editor Y, who has an interest in the area, looks for references, but can't find any.  He puts it up for AFD.  Editor Z comes along and thinks the article is a great piece of prose, if only it had references, but has no clue where to look for them, or perhaps no time.  
Who should have the burden of finding the references?  X could have added them trivially, but may not be watching the article -- may have left Wikipedia.  Y tried his best and has given up.  Z wants the article kept.
In my mind, X was in the best position to help Wikipedia and failed.  He overlooked, or did not understand, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."  Y has tried to help Wikipedia, yet it seems that many editors want him to work harder and find references that he cannot know for certain exist.  Z has done very little to help Wikipedia, but many editors feel that he has no responsibility.
Who should have the burden, and how should it be enforced?  Robert A.West (Talk) 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tale of an article

message: This concept has been mentioned quite a bit in recent discussions on this page. Here's a a specific policy proposal with explanatory text. This is the result of considerable thought toward all the views expressed, and it has already generated quite a bit of positive feedback on the talk page (when it was in my userspace). Please take a look at it and see what you think. We hope it can become an official CSD sometime in the future. Dmcdevit·t 08:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles]] 

message: Does the length of an article have any effect on whether it is speedy-able or not?-K37 08:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only for CSDs A1 and A3. --ais523 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for helping me!-K37 08:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone can create pagefuls of gibberish or obscene pictures. —Centrx→talk • 09:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, a banned user can re-create a deleted copyright infringement of nonsense that is quite lengthy. It could affect A7, but one can still write a lengthy essay on one's own family or pet; it could affect copyright infringement, but it doesn't matter how long it is if there was one copyright infringing contributor. —Centrx→talk • 09:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for explaining that. Cheers-K37 09:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about article length 

message: Criterion G8 has been causing confusion, because it states talk pages should not be deleted "if they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere". This exception clause is several years old and stems from the time when deletion was debated on an article talk page, instead of on AFD as we do now. Hence, it is no longer relevant to make this exception, and I think it should be removed since people are using it as a bureaucratic argument to argue for keeping post-deletion arguments ("why is tihs paeg deleted????2??"). (Radiant) 10:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I was doing that for a little while until I realized very few other people were paying attention to it.  If it causes confusion for a few and is ignored by everyone else, I agree - kill it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I dunno.  When it was made, we weren't salting pages, either, and often, the talk apge of those deleted areas are the only place people can go to possibly discuss trying to get the page back.  DRV isn't really doing its job in this regard, and if you go back too soon, you'll get shot down, so I think we should really be encouraging the use of the talk page on these types of articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember a recent case in which this exception clause was important, but I'm afraid I can't provide a citation. AfDs are contested on the nomination page, but speedy deletion tags may still be reasonably contested on the talk page. Unlike PROD, speedy deletion tags can't simply be removed if contested, so it seems like we need it for this case. Deco 11:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Per the wording of Template:Deletedpage, we should also not delete talk pages of protected deleted pages unless we have to. Kusma (討論) 11:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to get technical but Deletepage says that discussion of "restoration" can be left on the talk page.  Discussion about the original deletion - which does often resemble Radiant's example - doesn't count as restoration discussion IMHO.  It seems like WP:DRV is a better place for restoration discussion anyway.  Move restoration discussion from the deletedpage talk page to DRV and then re-delete the talk page - that's what I'd vote for. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *DRV would be a better forum, if only because asking for an article's undeletion on its talk page is unlikely to get any useful response. (Radiant) 12:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I thought the point was to encourage people to colaboratively collect information that they will present at DRV, especially since it is very hard to get a salted page undeleted at DRV, and we don't want people to ask for undeletion there very frequently. If DRV is the only forum we present, we should be nicer to people asking for undeletion of salted articles. Kusma (討論) 12:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **While it might be a good idea to collaboratively collect info there, I am unaware of that actually happening. Generally pages are salted because we really don't want them and have determined that from three or four debates already. We should definitely be nice to people who ask for that on DRV, but such requests tend to be spurious. At any rate, I don't particularly mind people putting such stuff on that talk page, but I think we shouldn't encourage it since it doesn't actually accomplish anything. (Radiant) 12:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ***If you're unaware of that actually happening, I'm wondering as to what talk pages you've been monitoring for it.  And even if it's not happening now, we should be actively encouraging it as opposed to encouraging such users to spam administrative talk pages instead.  As long as the talk pages are being used for things that may end up resulting in an improved encyclopedia, this shouldn't even be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ****Obviously I do not monitor the talk page of every 's talk page. And, I might add, neither does anybody else, which is why putting undeletion requests there is ultimately pointless. Since you seem to be sure that it is actually happening, I'm sure you could give us some links of that? (Radiant) 13:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *****Undeletion requests on protected deleted pages do happen and I have seen them get the attention of administrators via the  template. Of course, usually all that is to do for the admin is to tell the people on the talk page to go to DRV and whether they have an actual chance there. Kusma (討論) 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Users who bureaucratically abuse the intent of the clause should be politely corrected.  And perhaps the clause could be clarified to more clearly describe those older pages where the deletion discussion itself was archived on the Talk page.  But removing the clause completely would risk doing more harm than good.  We still need some of those old discussions from time to time.  Rossami (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly support this clause; it came up recently on Talk:Monobook.css (a cross-namespace redirect); earlier I had an accidentally-deleted VfD archive (on a talk page) undeleted and moved to a VfD subpage (even though AfD has all the subpages now). I'd get round the abuse above by defining a 'discussion' as being between at least two people and by using libral helpings of IAR. --ais523 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here is one example that clinched it for me: Talk:GraalOnline.  That talk page had two archives and 450 edits, the last 400 or so of which were a ridiculous edit war which involved User:BradPatrick and at least one near WikiSuicide (a guy getting so angry, he did a few things which later cost him an easy adminship) ---- all leading up to the article's deletion.  How was it determined that all of that activity was deletable under G8 if this deletion clause were adhered to?  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page deletion 

message: Can there be a policy that we can speedy delete dictionary articles? A db template is desperately needed on these "dictionary" articles. Diez2 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  Discussion is necessary to judge the possibility of expansion, and a db template would result in a lot of stubs being deleted erroneously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are looking for :Template:Copy to Wiktionary.  Jkelly 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Too subjective, failing the first criterion for speedy deletion proposals. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Dictdefs should either be expanded or transwikied. Whether or not Wiktionary deletes or rejects it, I would consider A5 to still apply. If they wish to contest the deletion, they should go contest it at Wiktionary, not here. Deco 18:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a dictionary 

message: I feel like I being daft here but aren't G12 and I6 contradictory?  G12 says you can immediately delete any image which has no fair use claim.  I6 says you can delete any image which has no fair use claim "seven days after it was uploaded" and are in CAT:NR...  It seems like G12 has rendered I6 useless, hasn't it?  Maybe I7 and I4 as well - they both require a waiting period while G12 doesn't.  CAT:CSD is getting flooded with images recently with everyone rushing to G12.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too dumb of a question to bother with or did I stump everyone?  ;)  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image confusion (difference between G12 and I6) 

message: Does anyone object if I add explicitly the text "This criteria does not apply to redirects in other languages (such as Japanese and Chinese, or any redirect in the category Redirects from alternative languages)." to criteria R3? I've seen at least one user whose edits mostly consisted of tagging Korean-language redirects as ; some were actually deleted. The advantage of foreign-language redirects is that they increase our articles' Google-ability and benefit those who know the subject only by the foreign language name. Kimchi.sg 14:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no objection here. We already do this in a lot of place-name articles, and it makes sense not to delete existing redirects (as opposed to a wholesale interlingua effort to create all possible redirects from all possible languages, which would be pure madness). -- nae'blis 15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the "all possible redirects in all possible languages" idea - no I ain't in favour of that of course. I suppose a redirect in an alternative language should only exist if the subject is primarily well-known in countries/regions where English is not the only major language. For example Junichiro Koizumi would have a Japanese name redirect, and Tan Kah Kee would get a Chinese name redirect, because people are likely to type in their Japanese and Chinese names respectively in the search box. But whether any other foreign language redirect is inappropriate would be a question for RfD, not CSD to decide since we don't expect all admins to know whether a particular language redirect for a particular subject is a likely search term. :-) Kimchi.sg 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to stuff beans, but how do we know the difference between a foreign word for an article's subject and a foreign word for small penis? This could mean a lot of bad redirects will not get deleted because nobody knows what it means. BigNate37(T) 16:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name or phrase would have to be mentioned in the target article. I recreated a couple of these Korean redirects tagged by the above user and deleted, after I saw that they referred to names actually mentioned in the target articles. Kimchi.sg 16:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was hoping for a multilingual list of inciteful slang and expletives, but I guess your solution is just as effective. BigNate37(T) 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects in other languages and CSD R3 

message: Why are talk pages of images on commons exceptions to G8?  If the image is on commons, the discussion should be on commons, no?  I asked about this on the administrator's noticeboard a while back (before I noticed that was listed as an exception here) and the one person who replied agreed they should be deleted unless it questions the licencing of the image.  I think all useful content should be merged to the commons talk page and then they should be deleted from the Wikipedia space. VegaDark 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree because the average Joe with no understanding of Commons-Wikipedia magic will think that this is a Wikipedia image: "If this image is visible from Wikipedia, it's 'on' Wikipedia and hence okay to comment on it from Wikipedia." They won't care the image technically is on another site. I'll oppose this unless perhaps the same "this is a Commons image" notice is added to the image talk as to the image page. Kimchi.sg 05:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Another facet is that editors are far less likely to comment if it involves a seperate logon and username. One time, I created an account to comment on some definitions at Wiktionary... that was an unpleasant experience and as a result I am no longer willing to use other wikis as an extension of my Wikipedia work—the (small) chance of that much hassle all over again puts me off. Requiring discussion to be at commons would exclude users like myself who just can't be bothered to sign up to another wiki. Now, on a more academic note, I disagree on principle that users who are too lazy to sign up should dictate what happens, and I support the exclusion of anon IPs voting in XfDs and participating in the RfA process, so I won't lose sleep over being excluded from discussing commons images. BigNate37(T) 07:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern will be moot when single user login comes into effect. Kimchi.sg 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Single signon? Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse?  ;-P Robert A.West (Talk) 12:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: G8 of Image talk pages

message: Under non criteria, one listed is "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted". What happens if someone makes an assertion of notability, but it's totally fraudulent (Not even "...was the President of the United States", but something that's easily proven totally false by a legit source. If that is the only thing holding it back from being CSD, does proving it false provide a legit reason to CSD it? 68.39.174.238 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a patently false claim is vandalism and can be deleted from the page by any person.  If, after removing such obvious vandalism, there is no claim to notability, the speedy-deletion case can apply.  However, this should only be used for blatantly obvious cases.  If there is even the slightest possibility that the claim is true, the page should go to AFD.  There is a reason that hoaxes are deliberately excluded from the speedy-deletion list. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Well, as someone wiser than me once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Obviously false claims can generally be seen as vandalism, and thus speedilly deleted if they're the only content of the article. Basically, if the claim was added to an existing article and you'd roll it back without further explanation as vandalism, you can pretty safely delete a new article if all it contains are similar obviously false claims. But if there's any doubt at all, it's no longer obviously false, so PROD or AfD is more appropriate, because truth is often stranger than fiction, if nothing else. --W.marsh 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often wondered about an almost identical question myself, and I fear that the ostensible conflict betwixt G1 and G3 leaves too much discretion in an area about which we are to be most cautious and in which those acting to tag or delete articles are to act exclusively ministerially.  I do not think it all plain that obviously false claims can generally be seen as vandalism; while the pure vandalism to which G3 refers appears to include creating joke or silly articles, G1 provides that patent nonsense does not extend to hoaxes, vandalism, or fictional material, and I think, should G3 be understood to control in such situations, G1 is probably unnecessarily verbose (it serves little purpose, I imagine, for us to say that patent nonsense does not extend to vandalism and then to provide infra that such vandalism is nevertheless speediable).  Rossami, notably, correctly observes that hoaxes are deliberately excluded from the criteria for speedy deletion, and I think the reasons underlying exclusion to be correct; I'd note, though, that WP:VAND, which is incorporated by reference in G3, provides that creating joke or hoax articles...is vandalism, ostensibly within the purview of G3's pure vandalism.  As this CSD talk thread seems to have borne out, there is a consensus amongst the community for the view that, if process is important anywhere, it is important at CSD, and that we ought to be as clear as possible regarding that which is speediable; what is less clear, though, is whether the community would prefer we expand G1 to cover such verifiably false articles as Joe was elected to serve as the 39th President of the United States and began his term in 1977 upon the expiration of the term of Gerald Ford or that we continue to interpret G1 narrowly and PROD such nonsensical articles as the former.  Joe 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "non-criteria" 

message: A common deletion criteria on RfD is redirects from the mainspace to the Wikipedia: namespace. Would anyone object to the adding of adding the criteria R4 - Redirects from the Main Space to another namespace that do not serve an inherently encyclopedic purpose. ^demon[omg plz] 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would object.  I also object to the fact that RFD decides to remove redirects like enwiki-l -> Wikipedia:Mailing lists when the existence of the redirects aids in navigation through the search box (if a redirect exists, hitting "go" takes you right to the target page) and doesn't block any conceivable article that might actually be written under that name.  We shouldn't be enforcing arbitrary rules about cross-namespace redirects at the expense of usability of the encyclopedia for users and editors.  We already have a CSD for redirects into user space, and I am fine with that, but I am not okay with a CSD about generally removing all (or most) redirects to Wikipedia space.  Dragons flight 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dragons flight.  The current R2 entry is only for redirects to user or user talk and is mostly used after userfying a newbie's vanity page.  Otherwise, I don't see any reason to unilaterally forbid cross-namespace redirects.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I also object.  There is not and never has been consensus that all cross-namespace redirects are inherently evil.  Rossami (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a strenuous objection.  Cross-namespace redirects are important for newbies who do not necessarilly know the correct pages for certain functions.  I think it would be a great idea to make them all soft directs so that nobody will rely on them, but you have to remember that not everyone knows where to go for some of the basic Wikipedia pages.  Also, keep in mind that any of the WP pages are technically in article space, not Wikipedia space. So eliminating all cross-namespace redirects would eliminate those as well.  There doesn't need to be a cross-namespace redirect (other than WP shortcuts) for every little essay, but the big pages that a newbie might search for should have them. BigDT 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Cross-namespace redirects are bad, and they should be deleted on sight. They break the division between the encyclopedia itself and its "internal" pages. Their existence shows that this is more of a blog than an encyclopedia, so that it's not a problem if these pages intended to be seen only by editors show up as if they were articles. As for the WP: - this is a pseudo-namespace, but could in theory be converted into a real namespace; they are only technically not in a separate namespace. Tizio 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it be bad if someone happened into a Wikipedia policy page of some kind?  Wouldn't it be useful for a casual reader to know the foundations of the encyclopedia they are reading?  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, which is a guideline and part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, has your answer. BigNate37(T) 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:ASR is irrelevant to this discussion.  That guideline reads "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles ..." (emphasis added).  Redirects are not articles.  Rossami (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But they show up on searches in the article namespace. Cross-namespace means they break the barrier between encyclopedia and wiki. Only by blurring the lines between the project and article namespaces can this be changed, and I hope it is not. At any rate, my response is still a valid one to Wknight94's comment. BigNate37(T) 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The opinions of RFDers does not necessarily correspond to that of casual editors and others, though, and it's something that's inherently impossible to gauge. I think a CSD I could get behind would be "removal of a cross-namespace redirect in order to make room for an encyclopedia article or redirect within the article space", but that could be handled as an editorial decision rather than a deletion/recreation. So yes, I object to the wholesale and unmitigated deletion of non-encyclopedic redirects. -- nae'blis 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might be okay if we could ensure that no article could ever accidentally link to another namespace, and that search engines / mirrors / tools don't pick them up.  On the other hand, namespaces were created to solve just such problems.  --Interiot 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for the removal of non-shortcut XNRs, but that rephrase of CSD R2 is just as flawed as having a CSD for "divisive" templates—it is too vague. Who decides what is encyclopedic? It is free license to delete shortcuts which would (and have) survived RfDs, and there have been and regretably will again be admins who abuse CSD criteria which are not specific enough to be black and white. Deciding what is inherently encyclopedic would be far more work than simply RfD'ing all the XNRs one can find, which for some is current practice. BigNate37(T) 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that my wording is less than perfect, and I invite someone to improve it. While it is a vague term, I was just trying to get across an idea. I suppose a slightly better way to state it would be "...do not directly contribute to encyclopedic content." While that's still vague, I think it better communicates the idea that I'm trying to get across. ^demon[omg plz] 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, sure enough, look at that. I've never speedied redirects, so I hadn't bothered looking at the actual options. I'm pretty satisfied, then. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-namespace Redirects?