Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 17

message: I've pulled the data for 24 January (all day EST).  To the extent I've parsed it (haven't even gotten to reasons yet), it is at User:GRBerry/Deletion Log Stats.  Activity is up from the December average, with 4,239 log entries of which onyl 50 were restores.  Top spaces were (Main) 2,093 entries on 1,865 pages; Image 1,028 entries; and Talk 468 entries.  The top 11 admins did 50% of the activity.  Parsing reasons is going to take some serious thinking before I code, and it is pushing midnight, so definitely not tonight and probably not till next week.  I obviously can upload a file of it all, or a specified fraction.  Let me know special requests, but this is on my home machine so do not expect to see anything except late in the US evening.  GRBerry 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No rush, but is there a status report on this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not yet.  Probably not tonight or tomorrow night.  But I did just think of it again.   GRBerry 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did an analysis of 1/3 of a day at User:Mangojuice/a7.2.  I suppose I should admit I'm not going to finish it at this point.  It is exactly 1/3 day, though, 1600 to 2359 UTC on 1/16.  Mangojuicetalk 01:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Single Day Data

message: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BJBot is being designed to go through the 100,000+ orphaned images and mark all the orphaned fair use images with the ORFUD template. Estimates for the number of images that are orphan fair use are 19,000 (via analysis of November 30 en.wiki dump) and 40,000 (my calculation based on my experience of going through orphan images manually). The bot will likely operate at 1 or 2 image edits per minute, thus, the bot could be placing up to 2880 images PER DAY in the Orphaned Fair Use categories. This will create 6 to 13 days (estimated) of categories with almost 3000 images in them (more days if the image runs at a slower rate, but each category would have less images). I believe this to be okay, since at least the images would be marked, and if the categories aren't cleaned out for a month or two afterwards, that would be acceptable. A possible alternative is to create categories especially for the Bot would would still apply under CSD I5, but not cause backlog in the ORFU normal categories. The advantage of this would be clearing out this "hidden backlog" of images, with the days of categories after the Bot run being likely very minimal (now they currently go from 90-300 (the higher numbers are likely days I manually tagged images)) because the orphaned images would likely mostly be taken care of. As part of the bot approval, it was suggested mentioning it here to ensure that no one would have a problem with the possibly (likely) large number of images in the categories. Is the alternate method of creating the special categories for the Bot preferred? Are admins that work in this area up to the monumental task of deleting of at least ~19000 images in the next month? Are there other questions or concerns that anyone has? Any comments or questions are appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I hope one day we have something built into the software that deletes orphaned fair-use images automatically after 48 hours (for images uploaded after 13 July 2006). It might make the task of deleting larger, but that's only because the task really is that big. -- Ned Scott 02:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that thought makes me wonder if anyone has made such a feature request. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of specialized categories myself but that's just an opinion without much basis in experience. Also, I take it there's some concern with bots deleting images? Orphaned fair use images seem appropriate to simply delete without much oversight. (this coming from a supporter of fair use on Wikipedia. If it's not being used then it probably shouldn't be there at all.)--Jeff 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot has never been given sysop to date, so I don't think it will start soon. BJTalk 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case there might be problems with people fooling the bot into thinking a page was ORFU when it wasn't, causing the deletion of a useful image, which is why such a deletionbot is unlikely to be approved. --ais523 13:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy to code around ... a hypothetical deletion bot (which this bot is NOT - this is purely hypothetical) would need to check to see that the orphaned template was added over a week ago and that the image is really in a fair use category.  Besides, since images can be restored now, this isn't as big of an issue as it would have been six months ago. Heck, a deletion bot could even be made to accept requests to restore images that it deleted so that if it did delete anything in error, it could be restored with no admin intervention. Sadly, though, if we wouldn't approve using a bot to protect the daily featured article from penis images, I doubt we're going to approve one that would actually delete stuff. --BigDT 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also all hypothetical but BJBot already checks what you mentioned and a check to make sure the image hasn't been edited in 5 or so days would be good to have. Really I have a better chance of getting sysopped right now than a bot with sysop ever happening anytime soon. Plus if BJBot ever had a chance to be sysopped I would have to hand over the code to somebody else because they will never sysop a bot ran by a non-sysopped user. BJTalk 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: User:BJBot has made it's first run using the dump from late November 2006. It looked at ~14,000 images and marked ~10,000 for deletion. The ORFU categories for Jan 27, 28, 29 and 30 will have elevated numbers, especially 28 and 29. However, I have gone through orphaned images and there are many that BJBot "missed" for one reason or another, I estimate that BJBot only got 40% of the ORFU images, which means there are still 15,000 still out there. --MECU≈talk 00:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BJBot & Possibly large number of images in ORFU categories 

message: Can we deal with the problem that G4 always applies to deleted redirects; once there has been a "consensus" at RfD, even if it's two editors, the redirect can never be recreated? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love it if we could, but the only solution for now seems to be to take it to DRV or be bold and hope that consensus has changed. -- nae'blis 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: G4 for redirects:not resolved

message: I've changed the wording to "Fails to attempt to address the reason for deletion" to make it clear that the question isn't whether or not all concerns have been met, but whether an attempt has been made.  If there has been an attempt, it should at least be evaluated at AfD.  Mangojuicetalk 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems more logical. I support this language. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "clearly" is much better than "attempts". -- nae'blis 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we can't use "attempts to", or it doesn't work. If I attempt to address a sourcing problem by adding a bunch of forum links, then why does it need another AfD discussion, where it will have the same problem? -Amark moo! 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Attempt" to address

message: So, is this working? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking back

message: I'd like to add a 'T2' (or T3 / T4 if we are 'reserving' historical numbers) criteria to allow speedy deletion of templates which purport to enforce a policy or guideline where no such exists. Having essays in Wikipedia or User space which don't have the weight of policy is fine, but when you start plastering templates on articles and talk pages telling people what to do, there needs to be consensus acceptance of it. I'm thinking of things like:
#Templates saying that 'this article contains offensive material'... despite consensus that we don't use such disclaimers.
#Templates saying that users are not allowed to remove warnings from their talk page... despite there being no policy to that effect.
#Templates saying that NPOV violations (as perceived by any user) are vandalism... despite policy clearly indicating that they aren't.
And so forth. Templates like these give a false impression of Wikipedia's policies and practices as they seem 'official' while actually being incorrect. Any cleanup/warning/banner template which can't be linked back to a specific approved policy or guideline ought to be CSD material. --CBD 13:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Rossami. Reword them into compliance if the wording is a problem, nominate them for TFD or utilize G4 if it continues. There's no bright-line for defining what tries to enforce/not enforce policy that requires a separate speedy category, in my view. -- nae'blis 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 'not policy' CSD for templates 

message: I'm a bit noobish in Wikipedia so bear with me if I don't explain well, or if I explain too much ^_^ I noticed a minor problem in a page related to Monkey Island (series) and its navbar. While trying to fix it, I noticed that the template of the navbar had two names, one was Template:Monkey Island (already deleted), and the other was Template:Monkey Island series. I noticed that the template was moved to the new name to match with naming conventions, and the old name was left there as a redirect.
However, during my clean-up, all the articles which used the template were changed to use the new, more correct name. I checked the "what links here" page to ensure that no pages used the template redirection. Since it wasn't an article redirection, but a template redirection, and it wasn't used anymore, the template was rendered useless. Any new pages which want to use the navbar will use the new name, because all pages use it, and any template search for it will come up with the new name rather than the old. It's not like articles where you have redirection pages due to probable different spellings or alias of the article name, templates only have (in the majority of cases) one name, and I think that's how it should be.
Since the page was useless, I wanted to tag it for deletion, but it didn't really match any speedy deletion criteria. I tagged it with a generic template, gave my reason, and came here to explain all this thing. I'm guessing that every template move will leave behind a template redirection which should be cleaned, and once not used, it should be deleted. While it is not critical, this process will help to maintain Wikipedia a little bit more clean, isn't it? 
I also wonder if there are any bots which will look at template redirection pages and delete them if they aren't used anymore. And btw, how do I access a list of template redirections?
IMHO the exact text of the new criteria, and where should it be put, should be done by a more experienced wikipedian, but I'd nominate templates, and not redirection, as the right place for it. This is because this problem only comes with templates, not with redirections in general. I hope I made sense with all this blurb! --Pi (π) 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of thing comes up very frequently.  In my view, there would be no harm keeping Template:Monkey Island as a redirect, since it's a plausible mistake someone could make in an article.  There is a process for this: WP:RFD, which is much like WP:AFD but for redirects -- this kind of thing bears discussing at least, it's not so clear-cut as to be worth adding a speedy deletion criterion.  Mangojuicetalk 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that RFD really covers the issue I've mentioned. There must be a reason for redirects. For article redirects, it's a plausible mistake. This is not a reason for templates, only very used templates have alternative names, I guess many are kept for historical reasons. When you use a redirect, you already know the correct name, either from a search, or from looking at the source of somewhere where the template is used. Template redirects are used for moved templates, I'm guessing *until* all the places where it's used have the new name. But once the redirect is not used anywhere, then there is not a reason for the redirect to be kept, unless it's kept for historical reasons, as I've mentioned. IMHO, these cases fall into speedy deletion, as there's not much to discuss about an unused redirection (as long as no page uses the redirection, of course). I tagged the redirection I put as an example, and it was promptly deleted. I'm just proposing an specific criteria to be used with this class of unused template redirects. --Pi (π) 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would recommend against deletion in this case.  Redirects do much more than just to support the search engine.  Redirects provide history and tracability to our actions.  What if, for example, someone reverts one of the pages using the template to a version which had the old template?  If substituted, you have a reference to a template which no longer exists (and no easy way to find the replacement template).  If transcluded, you end up with a dead link.  RfD is well suited to working out these issues since you are discussing the deletion of the redirect, no longer discussing the deletion of the first template.  Rossami (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, didn't notice the problem with reverts. As I said, I'm a bit new in Wikipedia and maybe I'm lacking that "global scope". Thanks for paying attention, tho. --Pi (π) 19:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of new criteria for speedy template deletion 

message: Not-so-hypothetical situation: an article is speedily deleted (twice, no less!) under G11. Its images, however, are still around (and going through IfD). Is there an actual criterion for speedily deleting them as well? I would consider it to, possibly, be G6 (Housekeeping), but it isn't specifically mentioned.
And, if there isn't a criteria, shouldn't there be one?
For those that are curious, the article is The Dodos, and the images are :Image:Dodos.jpg and :Image:Dodoguitar.jpg. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged images left over from speedy articles as housekeeping in the past, and that seems to have worked. Although, if I recall correctly, most of those images were obviously of no value and were either something silly or plain vandalism.  -- Ned Scott 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, I was just looking for you in #ev3 to get your opinion (and, eerily enough, you popped in just as I was writing that...). I'll wait until a few others weigh in, but if G6 is being used for such deletions, we should probably expand it's "official" scope. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting images uploaded only for speediable articles, but it should probably be a new criterion, rather than a G6 subcriterion. The wording would need to be thought about carefully. --ais523 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason to bother.  Images like this end up qualifying for CSD I4 or I5 before too long.  Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that, for I4, I5, and I6, it needs to be tagged in a particular way for seven days. I'd rather live up to "speedy" when dealing with these. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another reason to call the process "streamlined deletion" or something along those lines. -- nae'blis 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a serious point (and one that's been confusing issues at WT:CSDUA, among other places); 'speedy' can be a confusing name for many of the slower CSD processes. I like your 'streamlined' suggestion; any further thoughts? --ais523 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought "straightforward" or "simplified" could be accurate, if we wanted to keep the longtime CSD acronym. -- nae'blis 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you noticed how the 'C' changes its meaning from page to page? It's 'Criteria' here, but 'Candidates' in CAT:CSD. --ais523 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedable image question 

message: The current rule for "speedy" deletions of images moved to Commons was adopted in July 2006 after the proposer got two supports - the only comments received. One of the supports said that this would be better than the 5-10 day wait of going through IFD. However the rule requires a one week wait - hardly shorter than the 5 days mentioned. The tags for the process - Template:NowCommonsThis makes no mention of a one-week wait but, in fact, says images may be deleted "immediately after satisfying these conditions (CSD I8). The words "these conditions" are linked to :Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons which contains instructions for admins which also contain no mention of the one week wait. I would suggest that the one week wait be removed as it serves little purpose and had little support when instituted. Admins already need to check the images, revisions, licensing and links before deletion - the addition of a one week wait seems needless. Rmhermen 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there's no reason for a delay if all instances have been corrected. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I too would like to remove the provision The image has been marked with Template:NowCommons for at least one week. if all other provisions have been met. Any objections? --Golden Wattle  talk 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree, the one week wait provides one the opportunity to object to the deletion.  And I routinely object since moving images to commons prevents one from using the Watchlist to identify vandalism and talk page comments.  Since many of the images I have created are high profile, the descriptions are collectively vandalized several times per week (9 times in the last week, for example).  Dragons flight 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we have a balancing provision, if the nomination for nowcommons was made by the original uploader then no delay necessary?  That would then allow uploaders to object in cases similar to User:Dragons flight whre others have moved the image against his better judgment or wishes, but where the uploader herself / himself has moved the image deletion can power ahead. It would mean an admin would not clear out the category earlier than 1 week but a direct contact between admin and user could be legitmately actioned by the admin in accordance with the criterion.--Golden Wattle  talk 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: thanks for clarifying, I will amend as suggested.--Golden Wattle  talk 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to I8

message: Now that protected deleted pages are being protected as actually deleted, there's going to be talkpages for redlinks on them.  These shouldn't be speedied, though, because they're the specified place to gather information to request recreation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree that G8 needs revision.  As I recall a couple months ago when I looked at it, it was weaker.  Did something happen justifying strengthening it?  I feel much to much of a noob here to edit it myself, but I would like to open a larger discussion about the various reasons to delete talk pages.  Mathiastck 11:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a note on protected deleted pages, which should be uncontroversial as it is no change from existing practice. Any other revisions should probably be discussed here first. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would rather see (temporarily) orphaned talk pages allowed as the place to gather information on very-soon-to-come articles, but the template that supported such a concept got shot down at TFD. I'm not sure I see the point in allowing an exception when the page is protected, honestly. If anything, those pages (Talk:GNAA, Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica) have been more likely to cause problems than Talk:Chiba-Ken. -- nae'blis 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G8 needs revision 

message: Right now, most of the speedy deletion templates say, "Please consider placing ... on the User Talk page of the author."  When I patrol CAT:CSD, I generally find that the warning template has been applied only around half of the time.
There are obvious reasons for the warning.  If the article is merely missing some pro forma requirement, for example, the person is notable, but the article itself does not assert the significance, or the topic is important, but there isn't enough context and it fails WP:HOLE, a warning allows the contributor to fix the problem and we get another needed article.  If a contribution was made in good faith by someone who just wasn't aware of our policies, the warning makes them aware.  I have had multiple occasions where I have applied the warning and the contributor has thanked me for the explanation and said that they did not realize that Wikipedia was not interested in bios of averge high school students.  In this case, using the warning may help us to keep a potential contributor and it serves to answer their question of, "what the heck happened to my article".  The third case is a bad faith contribution and the warning allows an admin working WP:AIV to see that the person needs to be blocked.
Would anyone see a problem with changing "please consider placing" to "IMPORTANT: please place"?  That may get the message across a bit better that these warning templates really do matter. --BigDT 13:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I believe you should always place the tag on the user's talk page that way he/she knows his article is up for deletion.↔NMajdan•talk 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Yes, people should place warnings, but I would rather have an editor who doesn't place warnings continue to do so and mark pages for deletion than not, because someone made an issue of the user warnings.  I think we already have the appropriate level of emphasis on warnings.  Mangojuicetalk 16:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Mango. Interested parties are encouraged to use watchlists, that's what they're there for. Forcing people to use warnings is overly bureaucratic, and using terms like "IMPORTANT" in all caps give the impression that it's mandatory. >Radiant< 16:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately in the case of speedy deletions, watchlists are about useless, unless you happen to check it between the addition of the tag and the actual deletion. But that's probably better addressed by technical means. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, some admins will speedy delete a page immedately, without  letting it be on the list at all. This may be justified in exceptional cases, and I can see the convenience, but it means that no other person gets a chance to review. I have followed up 1 or 2 and in each case it was certainly justified, but it doesn't mean all of them always are. DGG 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Justified in exceptional cases"? The speedy deletion tags are just there for convenience, to allow non-admins to flag content that they think meets the criteria. They are in no way a necessary prerequisite for speedy deletion. --bainer (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd much rather see a technical solution whereby deletion log entries show up on your watchlist, for many of the above reasons. Creator abandonment is too high for me to expect that user warnings being mandatory will have much effect. I agree that in some of the borderline cases (A7, G11) they could be used more often, when paradoxically it seems I see them more often with straightforward vandalism/nonsense/attack pages. But that might just be my selection bias based on which CSD candidates I tend to evaluate. -- nae'blis 16:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User warnings 

message: Right now, it looks like one has to sort of guess, once a speedy reason has been selected, what the template is for that reason.  Would anyone mind if I added (or someone else did - feel free) the template (nowikied) next to each criteria, for that criteria?  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 14:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely don't use nowiki.  Use  if you do anything.  But there is a separate table near the bottom, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion  #Deletion templates because for several of the criteria there are multiple relevant templates.  GRBerry 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I didn't see the table, and since I didn't, I'm going to assume (hopefully reasonably) that others have missed it as well. So I added a sentence that mentions it; if that's acceptable to others, then I think the matter is closed.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding template on the project page, next to each criteria? 

message: I am seeing articles being speedied with explanations along the lines of complaint received on m:OTRS.  A recent example would be McLouth High School  I've read some of the OTRS material, and don't see anything in there which justified speedy deletion outside of the wp:csd guidelines.  What's going on?  Is there some new policy which hasn't been added to wp:csd yet?  Or are these speedy deleting admins simply acting outside policy?  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more like a pseudo-WP:OFFICE action. Also, while the deleting admin might give a non-descriptive deletion summary for various reasons, these pages are usually A7 material or Blatant attacks or Advertising or Copyright infringement. In any event, an article is not deleted merely because of a "complaint" but because there is a complaint in combination with serious other problems with the article. —Centrx→talk • 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm.  First of all, this page is never going to cover every single possible reason something might get deleted.  We, and by we I mean the community, are going to, every so often, encounter some situation where deletion is the best option, but which hasn't been added to this page.  That's one of the reasons why we have pages like m:Avoid instruction creep and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; not because we like chaos, but out of a recognition that big experiments, like giving away a free encyclopedia, demand some flexibility.  So don't depend on any policy page, including this one, covering every aspect of every potential situation.  Falling in love with process on a wiki will break your heart.  As to this specific concern, the Foundation Communications Committee chooses people to help out at OTRS based on a combination of good judgement, courtesy, commitment to the project, and a measure of trust from the local projects.  I wouldn't call OTRS volunteers  a "separate class of admin", or call OTRS actions "pseudo-WP:OFFICE"; both analogies are a little off.  Instead, I'd like to ask editors concerned with an OTRS action to feel free to ask questions about it, and accept that they may not get a satisfying response sometimes.  If you want to work on an article about that school, go ask User_talk:David.Monniaux about it, and trust his judgement.  All of that said, if the only way you can bring yourself to accept that there are things that we, meaning local editors, don't get to have all the information about or get to decide as if we lived in a world without consequences, is to think of the OTRS team as another class of admin/pseudo-OFFICE, then think of them that way.  Jkelly 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTRS? 

message: Does G5 apply for pages which have been edited by other editors after the banned user has created them? --- RockMFR 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apply the "cut your nose off" test: are they useful articles that are worth keeping? If they are, wouldn't deleting them just be cutting off our noses to spite our faces? If the pages have been improved by other editors, then that's a good indication that they are worth keeping. On the other hand, if the pages are not worth keeping, the fact that other editors may have edited the page is not a bar to deletion. --bainer (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G5 

message: Anyone know where these were?? --sunstar nettalk 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't recall the exact time frame, but they were done by User:Improv sometime last fall.  Most of the discussion is over at the deletion review, I think. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biscuit AFD's 

message: Does anybody know if there is a template that lets other administrators know that an article for speedy deletion is currently being reviewed by another administrator?  There have been several time where I go do a quick google search or try to start discourse with the creating editor and by the time i do, the article has already been deleted? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could probably adapt the  tag for that. Maybe make a  that says specifically an admin is reviewing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I was thinking about (just wanted to make sure it did not exist first).  Would there be a more apporporiate talk page to bring this up on or do you think it would be ok to just go ahead and create it?  I would be interested in a little but of community input on this-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AN, perhaps. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a thread here at WP:AN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, if a CSD criterion requires an adminstrator so much time to decide that a hangon-admin tag is needed, something is wrong.  CSD criteria should be clear and objective and shouldn't take more than a minute to evaluate.  It's Criteria for Speedy Deletion.  Mangojuicetalk 03:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  If you have to think about it that long, the CSD tag was very likely wrong in the first place.  Just take the tag off while you think about whether one of the other criteria might apply.  Rossami (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact,  might be the best, because that gives 5 days, and it allows for a verbose explanation of what the remaining issues might be (the reason that you're not sure speedy deletion is correct). I have read that giving reasons on a speedy template is frowned upon (They want one of the categories marked, and that's it). EdJohnston 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It may truly need to be deleted immediatly.  I.E. possible slanderous/personal attacks about people, copy vios or an article on "the best football player ever" who just happens to be a nn high school player.  If every one of those articles that a prelim google serach helps with got prodded instead, prod would become massivley backlogged with things that could have been deleted. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand the problem here. An admin acting on a CSD nomination can see the deleted revisions even after action has been taken by someone else (although it does take a few more clicks, annoyingly). If you disagree with the speedy/find evidence that invalidates the criterion cited in the deletion log, undelete and/or go talk to the deleting admin. Non-admins can take it to Deletion Review... am I missing anything here? I frequently find pages deleted out from under me after I start researching them, which I take as a good sign that some other trusted user is on the job and I can stop my Googling. I'm worried about  being left abandoned for too long as an admin goes to lunch, falls asleep, etc... -- nae'blis 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator Review 

message: The criteria currently applies to "redirects to the Talk:, User: or User_talk: space from the main article space", but I'm proposing it should also apply to Wikipedia namespace. I've previously seen several redirects from this type being removed from the mainspace without any deletion debate (e.g. requests for adminship and requested moved). As a part of the change, I also suggest getting rid of . Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't. At least, not until you get Wikiproject deleted. -Amarkov moo! 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually very strange it was kept following this overwhelming consensus. WP:RDR itself states "cross-space redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace" as a deletion criteria. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, I really, really hate it when people selectively quote our policies and ignore the parts they don't like.  Keep reading on that same section and you will see the section which says "However, avoid deleting such redirects if:" and goes on to list the many exceptions to the bulleted list you quoted from.  Many of the redirects to the Wikipedia-space satisfy one or more of the criteria in the exceptions list.   There is not even consensus yet that cross-namespace redirects are inherently bad.  (The last time it was proposed, the proposal failed.)  There is certainly no consensus that they are so inherently bad that we must speedy-delete them all.  Rossami (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that, although the chance that a person will check Wikiproject trying to find a proper mainspace article is a lot higher than the personal checking WP:CSD for the same purpose. I expect there should be minimally a proper mention of this in a policy. It's very strange that Articles for deletion was removed but requests for comment is up for nearly three years. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Speedy deletion and TFD frequently amount to the same thing, because there are some closers at TFD that will speedy-close CNRs hours after they have been opened. The zealotry surrounding CNRs is sort of baffling to me, since we're an in-progress work that can clean up after itself if/when it ever becomes important to remove such "backstage" kludges. -- nae'blis 20:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSD R2

message: Criteria A7 is being used to speedy delete numerous things that at the very least should be prod'd instead.  Things that make marginal claims of notability are still being deleted for having none.  I've seen numerous instances of articles whose subjects survive an AfD after earlier being deleted by criteria A7.  I'm not an "inclusionist" just worried A7 is being misused.  i kan reed 14:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence?  Chris cheese whine 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 is getting out of hand 

message: If an article is deleted using only G12 as the justification, but another criteria would also fit, it can happen that a copyright permission will be sent to OTRS, ending up with the article restored, only to be deleted again. It's a waste of time for the OTRS people, and for the article authors (who go through the work to send the copyright permission through OTRS only to be told later that "well, we don't want it anyway, it sucks"). G12 should only be used when there are no other reasons for deletion. --cesarb 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words: If it's spam, delete it as spam, because nine times out of ten it's the copyright holder who's writing the article anyway? -- Steel 16:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's interesting, but I think maybe just changing some guidelines/template messages around might help, too. "Text dumps" are one of the many scourges of newpage patrol... the natural reaction to seeing 5k of unformatted, uncategorized stuff with a totally unacceptable tone is "argh! delete this crap!". Only those aren't really justifications for deletion, but being a copyvio is. I guess a lot of it could be deleted as blatant advertising though. Still, people trying to release their advertising copy under the GFDL so it can be used on Wikipedia should probably see a message at some point telling them that's not a good idea. But can't OTRS tell these people their article didn't have much chance anyway, if they go to OTRS? --W.marsh 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there are perhaps hundreds of e-mails per day on OTRS, and each of these requires some investigation, it would be best if the other party recognized without needing to e-mail OTRS that the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia even if the text were licensed under the GFDL, or that the person responding on OTRS is able to handle the e-mail more quickly without needing to investigate any secondary or alternative reasons about the article. The worst situation would be where an article is deleted as a copyvio, the author sends an e-mail asking why, OTRS sends a response that it must be licensed under the GFDL, the author contemplates the matter or discusses it with the company's management, etc. and responds back, then the Confirmation tag is added to the article. Then, the article is deleted because it was crap. That is a lot of wasted time. —Centrx→talk • 16:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we're doing enough to get the message across that just dumping text into Wikipedia is not a good idea. A few software/warning message tweaks could save us all a lot of time. Take people trying to upload deadend articles... we should have had warnings on those since day one. But we still don't have them. --W.marsh 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G12 and OTRS 

message: The criteria as I understand it is that replacable fair use images are speedyable 48 hours after the uploader have been notified. However I notice a lot of images in the 48 hour part of the que where the uploaders have in fact not been notified, notably images uploaded with for example the  selection from the upload page.
I get that the logic is that if they where paying attention during the upload process they would have noticed the faint light gray on white "invalid fair use" heading above those selections (we might want to look into styling that better), and hopefully see the tag after the upload. Still, would it not be better to put those in the 7 day que and instead set up a bot or something to go though the 7 day cat, notifying people and "updating" the tag to the 48 hour style as it goes. I mean I'm all for deleting this stuff, but unless we can get people to understand why the flood will never subside. --Sherool (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A concern about the "new" 48 hour limit on replacable fair use stuff 

message: A user has recently created several redirects concerning Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Most are unlikely to be used, although not a typo, and one, President Hillary Clinton, is trying to predict the future.  Do you think these should go through WP:RfD or is there a way to justify them with WP:CSD?  I hate clogging up XfD with more trivia when not needed. --StuffOfInterest 01:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged the President one with  per not a crystal ball. The others I'm not sure about.  01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not fully sure I would consider this "nonsense", but I'll take it. :)  More interesting, the user created the same article twice today, first as an actual article and second as a redirect.  Guess it may be getting time for a WP:ANB/I posting as his edits are approaching disruptive. --StuffOfInterest 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest if you haven't already you try to counsel to user in the ways of Wikiepdia. ;-)  01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've warned him before about his edits habits, I fear he would not take well to recommendations from me.  It really needs a disinterested party.  (wink wink, nudge nudge) --StuffOfInterest 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User name?  02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K157.  If you, or someone, can drop him a helpful note it will be much appreciated, by me at least.  Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:NOT#CRYSTAL BALL is not a speedy-deletion criterion.  I would certainly not call it patent nonsense in the narrow way we use that term here.  Given the pattern of edits, you could make a case that this was deliberate vandalism but it's a thin case.  In the future, send them to RfD for community evaluation.  Rossami (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will any CSD cover this? 

message: Which template should be used for schools? db-bio?  db-group?  Do we need a new template?  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on which criteria you think the particular articles fall under. --bainer (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Ben is referring to a school article that meets A7.  Most of the pre-packed A7 templates refer to specific classes.  If in doubt, tag it with  with a suitable description (preferably including "A7" in there somewhere).  Articles of the form "X Y is a Y X" come under A3 also.  Chris cheese whine 12:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, "is a school" is not per se an assertion of notability.  Chris cheese whine 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schools are not bands and they're not clubs, and they're certainly not real people or groups of real people. --bainer (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the new rule that says only articles about people and bands have to assert notability for inclusion.  Chris cheese whine 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only articles about people and bands that don't assert notability are eligible for speedy deletion. God knows why it's only those things, I think the whole criteria is stupid honestly, but as long as it exists I'll try to make sure that people stick to it and not think that anything they dislike can be deleted under it. --bainer (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The deletion discussions over schools have been so very contentious that I do not think that it is reasonable to use any CSD criterion on them (except maybe vandalism or attack page if it's clearly intentionally derogatory and there is no good version to revert back to).  When schools are posted to AFD, they are routinely kept.  Personally, I disagree with the reasoning used but we have to acknowledge the will of the community.  Attempting to circumvent the community's stated position on schools through CSD would be a clear abuse of the process.  Rossami (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe that is "the community's stated position".  It just happened to be the stated position of a group of editors who were numerous and vocal enough to disrupt the process to such an extent.  I see no legitimate reason for schools to be exempted from the usual criteria (G1, A3, A6, etc.).  I suppose it would be more accurate to say the community's stated position on the matter is "enough fighting already!".  Chris cheese whine 15:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schools are most certainly not exempted from all speedy criteria, but since many people believe schools are inherently notable, they can't be an A7. -Amarkov moo! 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which template to use for schools? 

message: :Category:Wikipedians who have survived an attack by a crazed astronaut is an obvious joke usercat that doesn't help Wikipedia improve as an encyclopedia. I understand that CSDs must be very narrow so that the appropriateness of such deletions should be obvious to everyone. I thus would like to ask if we can agree on a new rule for usercat CSDs for cats such as the aforementioned one. Xiner (talk, email) 16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally use CSD stupid user category. As much as I would really love a proper CSD criterion to get rid of this rubbish I can't see it happening. -- Steel 16:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we at UCFD are more cautious than you, Steel. :) Xiner (talk, email) 16:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a clear-cut case, of course. But what about things that not everyone would agree are obvious, or even joke categories? Criteria should be as objective as we can possibly make them, and "obvious joke cat" is not. -Amarkov moo! 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I guess G1 (patent nonsense) suffices. Xiner (talk, email) 18:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you know for a fact they haven't survived a crazed astronaut attack? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't. But I'll bet at least one of the three users is lying. Xiner (talk, email) 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but identify one place where that information might be useful other than in an autobiography, or as an anecdote for a talk show ("Not a lot of people know this, Michael, but I was once attacked by a crazed astronaut ...").  I'm happy to simply classify this one as G0 (i.e. IAR speedies that don't fit a specific criterion but clearly don't belong). :)  Chris cheese whine 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be useful if you are ever working on the article Criticism of crazed astronauts and need some help from an editor experienced in that area. --BigDT 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of new guidelines for user category CSDs 

message: I suggest removing the "including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism" from G3 and move it to a new criteria in the R category. This new criteria would then be:
;R4:Disparage or subversive redirects or redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.
→AzaToth 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wouldn't be. That introduces "disparaging" and "subverting" as reasons for speedy deletion. -Amarkov moo! 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're G10's anyway.  No need to make a more specific redirect criterion.  (Besides, there used to be a specific redirect criterion for page-move-vandalism cleanup; splitting it back out of G3'd be a clear step backwards.) —Cryptic 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split G3 into R4 

message: I notice G6 mentions several specific examples of when it can be invoked...but does G6 apply to all "non-controversial housecleaning deletions"...such as at MedCom the deletion of improperly filed mediation requests? Or deletion of a moved mediation request's subsequent redirect? ^demon[omg plz] 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't it? —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of such, do you think that G6 could be extended to requests from WikiProjects to delete pages within its project space or portal, if one exists (assuming that there is consensus within the WikiProject about it)? GracenotesT § 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it already is, fairly regularly. -Amarkov moo! 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Broad is G6? 

message: Is there a CSD that would cover an album of a band page that was deleted?
Specifically: 
*Leid, 17 (album), and Pretty in Pain - Anubiz deletion log (AfD)
*Blood (Red Sea album) - Internal link leads to Red Sea (band) deletion log (CSD R1) which presumably redirected to RedSea (band) deletion log (prod deletion)
Squids_and_Chips 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *These articles probably shouldn't be speedied. They should have been bundled with the original AfD, but at this point that's not possible, so the best thing to do is to WP:PROD them. It would be rather borderline to tag them A7 -- this would only be valid if the article for the band had been deleted for notability reasons, which would involve an admin's checking the AfD/deletion log, which would take time. Prodding is really most efficient here. If the prod is contested an AfD will probably result in a consensus of speedy delete, but there's no need to waste the time of the AfDers unless that happens. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with N Shar. I do a lot of work in the :WP:ALBUM project and have come across orphaned album articles which I have always applied ProD to. There just isn't a criteria under :WP:CSD which covers them, unless they fall foul of one of the included criteria (e.g. short, no context). I have found ProD in these cases to be more than sufficient, and they are rarely contested. Bubba hotep 09:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD for albums? 

message: Am I missing it, or does one not exist? CovenantD 09:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Db-vandalism or :Template:Db-g3. :) Bubba hotep 09:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: G3 template

message: I propose a new CSD for maintenance categories that will never be populated again.  For example, the backlog in :Category:Articles to be merged since April 2006 has now been cleared.  There is really no reason to discuss this deletion on CfD but no mechanism for speedy deletion at present.  This doesn't actually require a new criterion; it can be added to the wording of C1. --Selket Talk 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I just realized G6 covers this. --Selket Talk 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty maintenance categories that will never be populated again 

message: It says to check Special:Contributions, but sometimes users have no edits. Should I update it to Special:Listusers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Slash- (talk • contribs) 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to, the Special:Contributions page for a nonexistent user is sutbly different from one for an existing user. Another trick is to check for the existence of the Special:Contributions link on the toolbox; it only appears if the user exists. --cesarb 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the only difference the presence/absence of the block log? --ais523 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *At any rate, a user with zero contribs can be considered non-existent. >Radiant< 11:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: **There are legitimate cases for having user and user-talk pages for zero-contrib users (AOL IPs, open proxies, doppelgangers,  (because the page that the user created would be deleted, they could have 0 visible contribs), temporarily for usernameblocks), so I don't think deleting user- and talk-pages of zero-contrib users is uncontroversial enough to be a CSD. --ais523 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ***And that is why people are supposed to think before deleting anything, and not blindly hitting the delete button for anything that technically meets the criteria. Nobody's going to delete the userpage of a zero-contrib doppelganger. >Radiant< 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ****I can think of lots more situations where a zero-contrib userpage should be kept than either situations where a zero-contrib userpage should be deleted, or a no-user userpage should be deleted, so I'd disagree with you that a zero-contrib user can be considered nonexistent. I don't think that there's a rush to clear out incorrect zero-contrib userpages, and so MfD could be used for those (come to think of it, I can think of one that should be deleted at the moment, so I'll go and MfD it now). --ais523 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criterion is meant to allow for deletion of user pages that legitimately belong to no user, but are created by other users for whatever reason.  As for user pages of users who have done nothing but create their own user pages, or who exist but have made no contributions, WP:PROD can be used to get rid of them. Mangojuicetalk 13:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User pages of non-existent users 

message: What's the tag for A7? {Slash-|-Talk} 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . All criteria at least have a redirect like that. -Amarkov moo! 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also,  and  and  and .  :)  Mangojuicetalk 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-7 

message: This section is overly bureaucratically worded and as such, instruction creep: "For the purposes of this criterion, a redirect created by a page move is considered to have been substantially contributed to by those who contributed to the article that was moved." Anything like "for the purposes of X, treat Y as Z" is worded like a code of law, which is what Wikipedia is NOT. Mango claims this was discussed; I would like to know where, and suggest its removal because we should be careful not to make this page overly complex. >Radiant< 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I didn't notice that removal, sorry about that one.  But it was specifically discussed: see #G7 clarification, just a few sections back.  Personal opinion, yes, we could keep that out, I think it's pretty obvious it should work that way; I'll reinstate the change.  The one I noticed was the change to G4, which was discussed at #G4 seems to have a wording problem..., pretty thoroughly.  Mangojuicetalk 13:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have thought that it was self-evident, too.  Unfortunately, recent entries listed on the Redirects for Discussion page convinced me that there was enough confusion that it needs clarification.  Would you be more comfortable with simpler language like "Moving a page does not make you the "sole author" of the redirect."  Rossami (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe simpler would be to say that G7 doesn't apply to redirects at all?  Does it happen very often that a G7 deletion gets put on a redirect that wasn't created via a page move? Mangojuicetalk 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does occasionally happen that G7 is appropriate to a redirect.  I don't know how you'd get exact numbers but there are several examples on RFD where a discussion was closed early as an appropriate use of G7 (or where other editors explained that the nominator could have used G7 in the first place).  See the G7 clarification discussion several sections above for the scenarios where it can be appropriate.  Rossami (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the more reason to keep the simpler wording.  If we have to get into what kind of page-move-left redirects can fit A7 to that degree, it'll just be confusing.  I'd rather let the stray problem cases that get objected to go to WP:DRV than clutter up the rules over this.  Mangojuicetalk 14:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruction creep 

message: I've been having some discussion with an editor over whether Appankoil is CSD G1. I'm pretty sure it isn't by a matter of precedent of how G1 is interpreted. If I'm correct making the narrow nature of G1 more explicit might help. JoshuaZ 05:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how much more narrow than "patent nonsense" you can get. That's obviously not patent nonsense. -Amarkov moo! 06:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appankoil is just 1 sentence. and part of G1 states: "This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history,"; therefore it qualifies for G1. --Parker007 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... no, it doesn't say anything like that. -Amarkov moo! 06:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well then, the template needs to be changed, because that's not what the criteria says. I'll go do that. -Amarkov moo! 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with CSD G1 

message: Shouldn't this criterion also apply to Redirects FROM userspace TO article space, and not simply the other way around? Logical2uReview me! 14:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, why should it? – Steel 14:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason to worry too much about it.  Surely redirects from userspace to article space that are unwanted will typically be unwanted by that user, and can be tagged with .  Mangojuicetalk 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And redirects from userspace to article space that are wanted are harmless.  Redirects out of the mainspace are harmful largely because many, many of our mirrors and other re-users copy only the main namespace; nobody mirrors just user pages. —Cryptic 14:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I brought this up because of User talk:Danielwharton, who moved his userpage to article space, leaving a redirect on his userpage, and there is no real speedy tag for that, but there is for the other way around (IE:Userfication (Infinitive of Userfied?))Logical2uReview me! 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a redirect from an actual userpage should be prohibited. Nobody should click on a user's signature in a discussion and be led to an article in mainspace on doing that. However, redirects from user sub-pages should not be a problem. I think I have a few of those myself; they happen if you prepare a draft article in userspace and then make it go live. No problem about those, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like, a redirect from a high visibility userpage to article space (IE: Non subpages, or a subpage in a signature?)Logical2uReview me! 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that, but I guess I'd avoid trying to spell it out in all detail. Leave it to common sense and avoid instruction creep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding CSD:R2