Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 27

message: R3b writes "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages."
I propose to remove Recently created and state it as:
"Redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages."
The reason is that they are many redirects left behind sometimes that coming from misnomers. Check Special:Prefixindex to see tenths of redirects that are just articles with quotes only for emphasis. As Wikipedia:Naming conventions writes: To maintain the functionality of Alphabetical Indexing and avoid needless redirect pages, page names should not begin with non alpha-numeric (A-Z,0-9) characters used solely for emphasis.
-- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reason "recently created" is there is so if some other website has linked to an implausible redirect we won't break their links. If the redirect was recently created this probably won't happen. Hut 8.5 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The other reason that clause is needed is because many things that one person thinks to be "implausible" often turn out to be very plausible - just not obvious given the way that you personally use the computer.  Remember that different people use different keyboard layouts (Qwerty vs Dvorak for example) making typos based on key proximity non-obvious.  Language, pronunciation and spelling variants are also common.  If a redirect has been around for more than a few days, the odds are that several people have looked at it and decided that it's an acceptable redirect - or at least that we should assume good faith on the part of the redirect's creator.  Those decisions should not be unilaterally undone by a single administrator.  If you think the redirect is truly implausible, use the RfD process.  A bit of discussion and a short wait to confirm the implausibility of the redirect is reasonable.  Rossami (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok let's make it more explicitly. I suggest we introduce the following rule for cases like these:
"Redirects from common misspellings or misnomers page names that used solely for emphasis"
Since yesterday I have tagged for speedy deletion more than 100 redirects and all were deleted immediately. I want to extend this in older redirects that were forgotten somehow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why the sudden effort to delete redirects? Old redirects aren't doing any harm. Hut 8.5 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this WP:NOHARM. Your answer implies that even if someone brings one of these redirects for RfD you would vote against because "Old redirects aren't doing any harm". -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That essay is aimed at deletion debates on articles, not other types of deletion discussions. About the only two reasons we would want to delete such a redirect are that "we don't need it" (which isn't a valid reason to delete anything) or "it saves server space" (see WP:PERFORMANCE). Indeed, a common argument at RfD is that "redirects are cheap", and I can see plenty of debates listed there currently where "Not needed" is being attacked as an invalid deletion rationale. Hut 8.5 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you give an example of a redirect used "solely for emphasis"?  I don't know what that is.  Rossami (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. I nominated 5 redirects for deletion. Many other similar cases were recent enough to be speedy deleted. Usually some users put quotes in song titles, terms or even names. Keep in mind that thsis phenomenon has already been noticed in Wikipedia but there is no policy for speedy deleting these cases if they get really old that they have to be nominated first and then deleted in all the cases (does anyone have a counter-example?)-- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are attributing intent where there is really only innocent (but sometimes old) error.  Quotes in a page title generally occur when a new user attempts to find a page on a specific topic.  Knowing that a standard search for will look for occurences of all the words in the phrase or title, the user puts the exact phrase in quotes, hoping to narrow the search.  If we have a page by that title, the search engine works perfectly and takes you straight to it.  If, however, we don't have a page by that title, you get the search results page saying so and offering you the link to create the page.  That's a wonderful way to expand the encyclopedia and has worked very well for us.  The problem occurs when you actually follow the suggested link where, for reasons that I still do not understand, our software adds the quotes in the title by default.  The new user, not knowing the difference (or the older user not noticing what happened) creates the page in good faith.  Sooner or later, someone notices the mistake and moves the page to the correct title without the quotes and the software automatically creates the redirect.  That's not an intentional attempt to emphasize the title, it's a glitch - a newbie trap that our own software creates.  In a perfect world, I'd rather see someone fix the software so the default link stripped off the quotes but even then we'd have all the old ones scattered through history - and yes, we do have to preserve the history of these pages including the changes to the page titles.  Preserving attribution history is a requirement of GFDL.  Leaving the redirects around does not hurt anything and actually consumes slightly less resources than taking the effort to deleted them.  Rossami (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are discussing for a different thing. I am seeking a way to optimise an already existing Wikipedia policy i.e. No reason to lose time to have 2 different strategies for new and old errors, no reason to Rfd cases that, experience shows that, will be deleted one way or another. You are discussing for changing the deletion policy and in fact stop R3b completely. Am I right or not? You are not telling why can deleted the new errors with quotes and not the old ones. You are telling me why we must no delete any of them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not trying to change the deletion policy but I am saying that you've been applying the current speedy-deletion criterion inappropriately.  Accidentally adding the quotes to a newpage is not and never has been an "implausible typo".  On the contrary, the frequency with which these titles are created demonstrates that it is a highly plausible mistake.  Rossami (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Rossami if you worry about the history I ensure you that 99% of these redirects have history record equal to 1. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Moreover, when you move an article to a new name then the history is moves as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a relatively recent change to the way our software works (and is part of the reason the speedy-deletion criterion is limited to only recently created redirects.  Pages moved before the software was updated did not simultaneously move history or (in an intermediate version) moved the content history but did not automatically record the change in title in the pagehistory.  Remember that even changes to the page title are generally considered to be useful history and are exempt from deletion (much less speedy-deletion).  The ones that you've run across may have mostly short histories but there are many still out there from before the software was updated.  An RfD discussion can sort out the useful from non-useful ones.  A speedy-deletion has too much chance of error since it doesn't have as many eyes on the question.  Rossami (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When did the software change? Can I assume that all the redirects after that day imply to the "recently created" rule? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, that would not be a reliable rule.  Even if the software moved the history, you still have the problem of potential internal and external links to the page (which Hut 8.5 described at the top of this thread).  If the title only existed for a few hours, it's highly unlikely that anyone found and linked to it.  On the other hand, if a page existed at the wrong title for any length of time, there is an ever increasing chance that someone started making links to it even though the title was wrong.  As a matter of practice, we do not want to risk breaking those links unnecessarily.  RfD is pretty good at sorting out the useful from the harmful links.  Rossami (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Internal links are not a problem. In addition, 99% of the articles I checked were orphan. It's Admininstrator's responsibility when deleting a redirect to ensure that he doesn't break any links. I insist that your problem is the rule in general and not it's expansion.It is obvious from your recent votes to similar RfD and your opinion here. -- 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Internal links are a problem because even if you have them currently orphaned, they may still exist in history and can be restored whenever a page has to be reverted (for example, to fix vandalism).  And even if you do fix all the internal links, you have no way to find, much less to fix any external links to the page.  It's easy to say that it's the deleting admin's responsibility to fix any links but practice has shown that to be an unreasonable burden in far too many cases (and not even possible externally).  My problem is not with the rule but with this inappropriate use of it.  Rossami (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So, according to your point of view, since an article is created is over. :) Please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Possibly unwanted were we are really trying to remove links even if they spread in many pages. Btw, I don't want this to evolve in a personal dispute. Certainly it's not personal. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am thinking of making a table to compare your cases and mine. Hundreds of speedy deletions and almost all the Rfd's of the last week show that these redirects are deleted. We have to be more flexible or to patrol redirections created more strictly before they become too old.  -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending R3b 

message: I should like to suggest that an alternative author notice be provided for those instances where the db-attack template is used for WP:BLP concerns. The present notice is fine for out and out attack pages but seems way too fierce for BLP concerns about content that may have been created in ignorance of BLP policy by, for example, an inexperienced user. BlueValour (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD G10 - proposed alternative author notice 

message: Hi, Mikkalai. I was wondering if you could explain what you found weird about the language of A7. I want to be sure that the language is clear enough for editors who apply it to understand that web content is a separate consideration from other creations by people. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The old text read: "..and web content themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software". I reckon you don't see nothing weird here. Well, I have never seen any "web content" that has "their books, albums or software". I thought only people and organizations may have their books or albums. I may be mistaken, though... `'Míkka>t 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. I wonder if the statement can be rewritten without cutting web content. Again, I want to be sure that the language is clear enough for editors who want to apply it. Would something like "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on" seem more appropriate to you? (Adding: I've gone on ahead and incorporated that and will await response from you or others.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdness in A7? 

message: I've seen quite a few dicdefs listed at CAT:CSD as either nonsense or insufficient context, and occasionally as pure vandalism. Often such dicdefs are from urban dictionary. These don't seem to clearly fit any one criteria for speedy deletion, yet they are routinely deleted. I'm sure they would be deleted through AfD, but if common practice is to delete them speedily, shouldn't the criterion to apply be more clear? Gimmetrow 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I tag such articles for transwiki. Once they've been transwikied, they fit under WP:CSD#A5. :) I wonder if it would clarify things to suggest that in that criterion? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Does anyone know what, if anything, Wiktionary does with these dicdefs we ship off to them by the truckload? They mostly seem unverifiable and often promotional (people defining buzzwords related to whatever thing they're selling), I sometimes imagine Wiktionary sees this stuff as junk mail. But I'm not familiar with that project. Anyway, you can always use prod if it doesn't fall into any of the CSDs. Stuff copied from urban dictionary often might, though. --W.marsh 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While reasons in WP:NOT are not speedy deletion listing, some will be lacking context. Otherwise they really should be AfD'd or transwikied. But that is just my take, there is always IAR(when used with care). 1 != 2 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think IAR should ever have a uniform application. If that's the case, and it's accepted, then a policy change would likely also be accepted (but I don't think that's the caes here). Someguy1221 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and I don't think IAR is ever a reason for a speedy deletion. There's a difference between one person ignoring all formal rules, and a community decision that a particular case warrants doing so. DGG (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: G6 seems to  be an IAR replacement as a CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definitions 

message: I personally think that we should add the deletion of obsoleted images (like better quality images, images that are SVG's now, etc) as a possible criteria for speedy deletion. IF and ONLY IF the image is truly not needed anymore. Good idea? ViperSnake151 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea to delete.  A bad candidate to speedy-delete. The determination that an image is truly obsoleted is not always obvious or non-controversial.  From what I can tell, the Images for Deletion process seems to be working.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?  Rossami (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obselete Images 

message: I propose we remove the exception for G8 where the image is on Commons. Once the image is moved to Commons, all discussion should take place there, not here, and having a red link image but a blue link talk page on the image is confusing and unhelpful. Majorly (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image was moved from en to commons, sometimes the talk page has relevant licensing and copyright discussion, and so should not be deleted. After an image is moved to commons, do we really expect en editors to go to commons to make comments, when a talk page button is right there? Gimmetrow 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. Commons is underrated for free images, and it makes sense to discuss the image where it is hosted. It's like discussing a non-existent article here that does exist on say, French Wikipedia, Majorly (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's more like a discussion on a redirect's talk page. Maybe if talk pages of images hosted on commons were soft redirects to the commons talk page? But that still doesn't address the issue of talk content prior to moving an image to commons - in some cases that should not be deleted. Gimmetrow 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance of an automatic link to the commons talk page from the talk tab, where it exists and the local talk page does not? This is why a lot of these get created. —Random832 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  G8 and images on commons 

message: I propose the removal of "and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism", as I think that could be speediable under G6 as well. →AzaToth 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that. As necessary, the text "and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism" can be moved down (with minor changes) to G6. It makes sense to me to cluster all redirects together. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove redirects from G3 

message: I think a new criteria is needed.  It would be criteria U4 for speedy deletion and will be used in the following way:
Any pages in the userspace of an indefinitely blocked user not required for sockpuppetry tracking purposes can be deleted 30 days after said pages have last been edited.
Couple reasons for this:
*First, to help eliminate, and avoid future backlogs in :Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages.  
*When a user is indefinitely blocked,  is usually added to their user page.  This template automatically puts the user in the category :Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages.  These pages can be deleted after 30 days.  The problem is, the category is so massive, it is difficult to go through to see which pages are ready to be deleted.  After this criteria is implemented, there is plan to change the indefblocked template to allow for separation by date, so that the user pages that are ready for deletion will be easier to find.
Any comments are appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do they need to be deleted with such prejudice? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because of DENY →AzaToth 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense to me, yeah. Keilanatalk 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec x 2) CSD is already quite lengthy and intricate. I'm hesitant to add an additional criterion unless absolutely necessary. G6 would cover these just fine. Perhaps we expand the definition of "housekeeping"? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That definately is a possibility, however with the large volume of pages that this would apply to, I figured it would be best to have a separate criteria.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an alternative, could a bot be created to add :Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages tagged for over 30 days to the relevant pages? If the main problem is with identifying the pages subject to deletion, it seems to me creating a new criterion would just transpose the backlog somewhere else. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CAT:CSD is frequented my most admins.  I highly doubt a large backlog (like the one that already exists in CAT:TEMP) would present itself there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There appear to me two possibilities: A) If you can't tag until the time limit expires, we have a backlog of pages sitting in the existing cat, waiting to be tagged for the new speedy or B) We have a backlog of pages sitting in CAT:CSD waiting for the time limit to expire. I just don't see what you would accomplish with a new CSD criterion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be no waiting once the page hits CAT:CSD.  When it goes there, it already passed the 30 days and can be deleted immediately. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's going to move them? If the problem is the current size of the category, then you're expecting a non-admin to run through it and tag stuff. Now, I'm a huge fan of gnomish editing, but that seems boring even to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Move what?  The pages will remain in CAT:TEMP (or something similar) until 30 days has passed.  Once that happens, tag them with this speedy and then they are deleted.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also note there are about 10,000 pages in CAT:TEMP right now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just still not clear on how you expect this to accomplish anything. The existence of a speedy criterion will attract more admins to the necessary pages, yes, but the newly speediable pages would still need to be sifted out from the ~10,000 ones in that cat. And in any event, the pages are already deletable, with or without a new criterion. So it seems to me that not only would the criterion not solve the problem, but also it could be more easily handled by a bot that could go through and identify the pages that have been in the cat long enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This proposal seems to be missing a few things that were originally suggested on the WP:AN thread. This would basically be done like the image deletion categories. After this is enacted, the templates that categorize pages into CAT:TEMP would instead use something like Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages as of   to have categories sorted by date. Once a category is 30+ days old, pages meeting the criteria could be deleted. As for pages currently in CAT:TEMP, they would sit for 30 days and after that, if they meet the criteria they could be deleted. The existence of the criteria won't attract admins, but listing it on CAT:CSD would. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. —Kurykh 04:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ummm, it is possible.  Look for a tag that says "sockpuppet" , "multiple accounts", or anything like that.  And we are already deleting these pages; this proposal would just make it easier to find the correct ones to deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a new CSD just simply isn't worth the effort (and drama) when G6 or a customized edit summary can simply be used. </2cents> --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sweet! Where's the list? -- lucasbfr talk 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New criteria proposal 

message: I think that CSD R2 should be expanded to include redirects from the Template namespace. Such redirects usually serve no purpose. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean a page in the template namespace which is a redirect to a page in another namespace?  What about userboxes that have been migrated but not all incoming links have been changed? Happy‑melon 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That problem would be very simple to fix. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 1) Do you have an example of a redirect that you're talking about?  2) How often do these occur?  In several months of monitoring WP:RFD, I can't remember any such redirects coming up.  That would tend to indicate that the volume is very low.  Rossami (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  expand CSD R2 to include redirects from the Template namespace 

message: There is no csd for lists that simply duplicates existing categories.  Not sure if it is common enough to warrant it's own criteria.  Can GSD 6 apply to these types of lists? Taemyr (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No - use WP:PROD instead. It's not the type of deletion suitable for speedy deletion - sometimes the list has functionality that a category doesn't (I have seen AfDs of lists which "duplicate categories" kept), and deciding whether it duplicates a category or not is a subjective judgement which speedy deletion is not intended to be. --Hut 8.5 18:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was completely unavare of WP:CLS when prodding this, so it's clearly not an issue that should go under speedy. Taemyr (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[List_of_real_estate_topics]] a GSD 6 candidate? 

message: General exception for "non-article talk pages where significant policy discussion has taken place", as a widening of the existing exception for old VFDs. The existing exception "useful to the encyclopedia" was sufficient for me to justify undeleting Template talk:Spoiler (now Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk), but not sufficient to prevent it from being deleted in the first place. —Random832 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh.  I would say that discussion is clearly "useful to the encyclopedia," so this looks like a mistake rather than a problem with the policy.  And that situation is sufficiently rare that I think better to keep the text as is.  Mangojuicetalk 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed G8 exception 

message: On the speedy deletion page, it suggests we add a comment onto the talk page. Many other templates include this in the speedy deletion notice as a line that can be copied and pasted. However, this is not included in this template. Could it be added, please? (duplicated request from the template talk page) StephenBuxton (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mod to Db-redirmisnomer 

message: Have I tagged :Image:Bennati in the golden jersey.JPG correctly?  It appears to have been copied from this website (which I mentioned in the edit summary), and has no assertion of being freely licensed beyond the license tag, so I assumed it was covered by I9; yet no admin has been willing to delete, so I'm wondering whether I'm misunderstanding the criterion. --Diagonal P. (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, no admin being willing to delete a page, is no evidence of it being mis-tagged, as lon as no admion has removed the speedy tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The subtleties of CSD#I9 

message: The WP:CSD#T3 criterion has now been under discussion for 24 days.  The RFC was opened on January 6 and has been open for 16 days.  Notice was placed on AN and VPR on January 12, 10 days ago.  I believe it is time to consider the points raised above and determine if consensus supports this policy.  My interpretation of the discussion above is that there are no significant objections that have not been retracted or suitably responded to.  But of course, I have something of a conflict of interest!  I would therefore appreciate other editors' interptretations of the discussion above. Do we have consensus for T3? Happy‑melon 12:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  T3 

message: Aside from opposition or support for T3, isn't it more of a prod for templates than a speedy deletion? Not just because of the time, but because the criteria itself would suggest that if someone has a use for a template, they can remove the tag (assuming it's a legitimate use, and not just one for the sake of keeping the template from being deleted). I only bring this up because I've seen a few people start to cite T3 in WP:TFD, which would rather mean they would have to wait for deletion, in the same way they would have to wait for the TfD to end, not making it any "speedier". -- Ned Scott 09:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that T3 does not make very much sense as a vote in TfDs.  The reason that I've been using it is to increase awareness that we now have this new option for dealing with a narrow class of deletions; as I said here, for instance, no it's not useful in this instance, but in future this editor will now be aware that T3 is available for deletions like this. Happy‑melon 11:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: From my understanding, that's the exact same way images work. A non-compliant image can have a fair use rationale added and then the tags can be removed by anyone. Right? As for people citing this in TfD.... --MZMcBride (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A secondary issue is that the general use of prod for templates has been discussed several times on the prod talk page and never found agreement. This is a much more limited criterion - it is not a general prod for templates. It does have a time delat similar to the image criteria. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy? 

message: R3b writes "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages."
I propose to remove Recently created and state it as:
"Redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages."
The reason is that they are many redirects left behind sometimes that coming from misnomers. Check Special:Prefixindex to see tenths of redirects that are just articles with quotes only for emphasis. As Wikipedia:Naming conventions writes: To maintain the functionality of Alphabetical Indexing and avoid needless redirect pages, page names should not begin with non alpha-numeric (A-Z,0-9) characters used solely for emphasis.
-- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reason "recently created" is there is so if some other website has linked to an implausible redirect we won't break their links. If the redirect was recently created this probably won't happen. Hut 8.5 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The other reason that clause is needed is because many things that one person thinks to be "implausible" often turn out to be very plausible - just not obvious given the way that you personally use the computer.  Remember that different people use different keyboard layouts (Qwerty vs Dvorak for example) making typos based on key proximity non-obvious.  Language, pronunciation and spelling variants are also common.  If a redirect has been around for more than a few days, the odds are that several people have looked at it and decided that it's an acceptable redirect - or at least that we should assume good faith on the part of the redirect's creator.  Those decisions should not be unilaterally undone by a single administrator.  If you think the redirect is truly implausible, use the RfD process.  A bit of discussion and a short wait to confirm the implausibility of the redirect is reasonable.  Rossami (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok let's make it more explicitly. I suggest we introduce the following rule for cases like these:
"Redirects from common misspellings or misnomers page names that used solely for emphasis"
Since yesterday I have tagged for speedy deletion more than 100 redirects and all were deleted immediately. I want to extend this in older redirects that were forgotten somehow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why the sudden effort to delete redirects? Old redirects aren't doing any harm. Hut 8.5 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this WP:NOHARM. Your answer implies that even if someone brings one of these redirects for RfD you would vote against because "Old redirects aren't doing any harm". -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That essay is aimed at deletion debates on articles, not other types of deletion discussions. About the only two reasons we would want to delete such a redirect are that "we don't need it" (which isn't a valid reason to delete anything) or "it saves server space" (see WP:PERFORMANCE). Indeed, a common argument at RfD is that "redirects are cheap", and I can see plenty of debates listed there currently where "Not needed" is being attacked as an invalid deletion rationale. Hut 8.5 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you give an example of a redirect used "solely for emphasis"?  I don't know what that is.  Rossami (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 2. I nominated 5 redirects for deletion. Many other similar cases were recent enough to be speedy deleted. Usually some users put quotes in song titles, terms or even names. Keep in mind that thsis phenomenon has already been noticed in Wikipedia but there is no policy for speedy deleting these cases if they get really old that they have to be nominated first and then deleted in all the cases (does anyone have a counter-example?)-- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are attributing intent where there is really only innocent (but sometimes old) error.  Quotes in a page title generally occur when a new user attempts to find a page on a specific topic.  Knowing that a standard search for will look for occurences of all the words in the phrase or title, the user puts the exact phrase in quotes, hoping to narrow the search.  If we have a page by that title, the search engine works perfectly and takes you straight to it.  If, however, we don't have a page by that title, you get the search results page saying so and offering you the link to create the page.  That's a wonderful way to expand the encyclopedia and has worked very well for us.  The problem occurs when you actually follow the suggested link where, for reasons that I still do not understand, our software adds the quotes in the title by default.  The new user, not knowing the difference (or the older user not noticing what happened) creates the page in good faith.  Sooner or later, someone notices the mistake and moves the page to the correct title without the quotes and the software automatically creates the redirect.  That's not an intentional attempt to emphasize the title, it's a glitch - a newbie trap that our own software creates.  In a perfect world, I'd rather see someone fix the software so the default link stripped off the quotes but even then we'd have all the old ones scattered through history - and yes, we do have to preserve the history of these pages including the changes to the page titles.  Preserving attribution history is a requirement of GFDL.  Leaving the redirects around does not hurt anything and actually consumes slightly less resources than taking the effort to deleted them.  Rossami (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are discussing for a different thing. I am seeking a way to optimise an already existing Wikipedia policy i.e. No reason to lose time to have 2 different strategies for new and old errors, no reason to Rfd cases that, experience shows that, will be deleted one way or another. You are discussing for changing the deletion policy and in fact stop R3b completely. Am I right or not? You are not telling why can deleted the new errors with quotes and not the old ones. You are telling me why we must no delete any of them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not trying to change the deletion policy but I am saying that you've been applying the current speedy-deletion criterion inappropriately.  Accidentally adding the quotes to a newpage is not and never has been an "implausible typo".  On the contrary, the frequency with which these titles are created demonstrates that it is a highly plausible mistake.  Rossami (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Rossami if you worry about the history I ensure you that 99% of these redirects have history record equal to 1. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Moreover, when you move an article to a new name then the history is moves as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a relatively recent change to the way our software works (and is part of the reason the speedy-deletion criterion is limited to only recently created redirects.  Pages moved before the software was updated did not simultaneously move history or (in an intermediate version) moved the content history but did not automatically record the change in title in the pagehistory.  Remember that even changes to the page title are generally considered to be useful history and are exempt from deletion (much less speedy-deletion).  The ones that you've run across may have mostly short histories but there are many still out there from before the software was updated.  An RfD discussion can sort out the useful from non-useful ones.  A speedy-deletion has too much chance of error since it doesn't have as many eyes on the question.  Rossami (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When did the software change? Can I assume that all the redirects after that day imply to the "recently created" rule? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, that would not be a reliable rule.  Even if the software moved the history, you still have the problem of potential internal and external links to the page (which Hut 8.5 described at the top of this thread).  If the title only existed for a few hours, it's highly unlikely that anyone found and linked to it.  On the other hand, if a page existed at the wrong title for any length of time, there is an ever increasing chance that someone started making links to it even though the title was wrong.  As a matter of practice, we do not want to risk breaking those links unnecessarily.  RfD is pretty good at sorting out the useful from the harmful links.  Rossami (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Internal links are not a problem. In addition, 99% of the articles I checked were orphan. It's Admininstrator's responsibility when deleting a redirect to ensure that he doesn't break any links. I insist that your problem is the rule in general and not it's expansion.It is obvious from your recent votes to similar RfD and your opinion here. -- 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Internal links are a problem because even if you have them currently orphaned, they may still exist in history and can be restored whenever a page has to be reverted (for example, to fix vandalism).  And even if you do fix all the internal links, you have no way to find, much less to fix any external links to the page.  It's easy to say that it's the deleting admin's responsibility to fix any links but practice has shown that to be an unreasonable burden in far too many cases (and not even possible externally).  My problem is not with the rule but with this inappropriate use of it.  Rossami (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So, according to your point of view, since an article is created is over. :) Please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Possibly unwanted were we are really trying to remove links even if they spread in many pages. Btw, I don't want this to evolve in a personal dispute. Certainly it's not personal. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am thinking of making a table to compare your cases and mine. Hundreds of speedy deletions and almost all the Rfd's of the last week show that these redirects are deleted. We have to be more flexible or to patrol redirections created more strictly before they become too old.  -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending R3b 

message: I should like to suggest that an alternative author notice be provided for those instances where the db-attack template is used for WP:BLP concerns. The present notice is fine for out and out attack pages but seems way too fierce for BLP concerns about content that may have been created in ignorance of BLP policy by, for example, an inexperienced user. BlueValour (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD G10 - proposed alternative author notice 

message: Hi, Mikkalai. I was wondering if you could explain what you found weird about the language of A7. I want to be sure that the language is clear enough for editors who apply it to understand that web content is a separate consideration from other creations by people. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The old text read: "..and web content themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software". I reckon you don't see nothing weird here. Well, I have never seen any "web content" that has "their books, albums or software". I thought only people and organizations may have their books or albums. I may be mistaken, though... `'Míkka>t 21:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. I wonder if the statement can be rewritten without cutting web content. Again, I want to be sure that the language is clear enough for editors who want to apply it. Would something like "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on" seem more appropriate to you? (Adding: I've gone on ahead and incorporated that and will await response from you or others.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdness in A7? 

message: I've seen quite a few dicdefs listed at CAT:CSD as either nonsense or insufficient context, and occasionally as pure vandalism. Often such dicdefs are from urban dictionary. These don't seem to clearly fit any one criteria for speedy deletion, yet they are routinely deleted. I'm sure they would be deleted through AfD, but if common practice is to delete them speedily, shouldn't the criterion to apply be more clear? Gimmetrow 06:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I tag such articles for transwiki. Once they've been transwikied, they fit under WP:CSD#A5. :) I wonder if it would clarify things to suggest that in that criterion? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Does anyone know what, if anything, Wiktionary does with these dicdefs we ship off to them by the truckload? They mostly seem unverifiable and often promotional (people defining buzzwords related to whatever thing they're selling), I sometimes imagine Wiktionary sees this stuff as junk mail. But I'm not familiar with that project. Anyway, you can always use prod if it doesn't fall into any of the CSDs. Stuff copied from urban dictionary often might, though. --W.marsh 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While reasons in WP:NOT are not speedy deletion listing, some will be lacking context. Otherwise they really should be AfD'd or transwikied. But that is just my take, there is always IAR(when used with care). 1 != 2 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think IAR should ever have a uniform application. If that's the case, and it's accepted, then a policy change would likely also be accepted (but I don't think that's the caes here). Someguy1221 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and I don't think IAR is ever a reason for a speedy deletion. There's a difference between one person ignoring all formal rules, and a community decision that a particular case warrants doing so. DGG (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: G6 seems to  be an IAR replacement as a CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definitions 

message: I personally think that we should add the deletion of obsoleted images (like better quality images, images that are SVG's now, etc) as a possible criteria for speedy deletion. IF and ONLY IF the image is truly not needed anymore. Good idea? ViperSnake151 12:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea to delete.  A bad candidate to speedy-delete. The determination that an image is truly obsoleted is not always obvious or non-controversial.  From what I can tell, the Images for Deletion process seems to be working.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?  Rossami (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obselete Images 

message: I propose we remove the exception for G8 where the image is on Commons. Once the image is moved to Commons, all discussion should take place there, not here, and having a red link image but a blue link talk page on the image is confusing and unhelpful. Majorly (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image was moved from en to commons, sometimes the talk page has relevant licensing and copyright discussion, and so should not be deleted. After an image is moved to commons, do we really expect en editors to go to commons to make comments, when a talk page button is right there? Gimmetrow 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. Commons is underrated for free images, and it makes sense to discuss the image where it is hosted. It's like discussing a non-existent article here that does exist on say, French Wikipedia, Majorly (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's more like a discussion on a redirect's talk page. Maybe if talk pages of images hosted on commons were soft redirects to the commons talk page? But that still doesn't address the issue of talk content prior to moving an image to commons - in some cases that should not be deleted. Gimmetrow 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance of an automatic link to the commons talk page from the talk tab, where it exists and the local talk page does not? This is why a lot of these get created. —Random832 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  G8 and images on commons 

message: I propose the removal of "and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism", as I think that could be speediable under G6 as well. →AzaToth 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that. As necessary, the text "and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism" can be moved down (with minor changes) to G6. It makes sense to me to cluster all redirects together. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove redirects from G3 

message: I think a new criteria is needed.  It would be criteria U4 for speedy deletion and will be used in the following way:
Any pages in the userspace of an indefinitely blocked user not required for sockpuppetry tracking purposes can be deleted 30 days after said pages have last been edited.
Couple reasons for this:
*First, to help eliminate, and avoid future backlogs in :Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages.  
*When a user is indefinitely blocked,  is usually added to their user page.  This template automatically puts the user in the category :Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages.  These pages can be deleted after 30 days.  The problem is, the category is so massive, it is difficult to go through to see which pages are ready to be deleted.  After this criteria is implemented, there is plan to change the indefblocked template to allow for separation by date, so that the user pages that are ready for deletion will be easier to find.
Any comments are appreciated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do they need to be deleted with such prejudice? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because of DENY →AzaToth 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense to me, yeah. Keilanatalk 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec x 2) CSD is already quite lengthy and intricate. I'm hesitant to add an additional criterion unless absolutely necessary. G6 would cover these just fine. Perhaps we expand the definition of "housekeeping"? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That definately is a possibility, however with the large volume of pages that this would apply to, I figured it would be best to have a separate criteria.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an alternative, could a bot be created to add :Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages tagged for over 30 days to the relevant pages? If the main problem is with identifying the pages subject to deletion, it seems to me creating a new criterion would just transpose the backlog somewhere else. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CAT:CSD is frequented my most admins.  I highly doubt a large backlog (like the one that already exists in CAT:TEMP) would present itself there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There appear to me two possibilities: A) If you can't tag until the time limit expires, we have a backlog of pages sitting in the existing cat, waiting to be tagged for the new speedy or B) We have a backlog of pages sitting in CAT:CSD waiting for the time limit to expire. I just don't see what you would accomplish with a new CSD criterion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be no waiting once the page hits CAT:CSD.  When it goes there, it already passed the 30 days and can be deleted immediately. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's going to move them? If the problem is the current size of the category, then you're expecting a non-admin to run through it and tag stuff. Now, I'm a huge fan of gnomish editing, but that seems boring even to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Move what?  The pages will remain in CAT:TEMP (or something similar) until 30 days has passed.  Once that happens, tag them with this speedy and then they are deleted.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also note there are about 10,000 pages in CAT:TEMP right now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just still not clear on how you expect this to accomplish anything. The existence of a speedy criterion will attract more admins to the necessary pages, yes, but the newly speediable pages would still need to be sifted out from the ~10,000 ones in that cat. And in any event, the pages are already deletable, with or without a new criterion. So it seems to me that not only would the criterion not solve the problem, but also it could be more easily handled by a bot that could go through and identify the pages that have been in the cat long enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This proposal seems to be missing a few things that were originally suggested on the WP:AN thread. This would basically be done like the image deletion categories. After this is enacted, the templates that categorize pages into CAT:TEMP would instead use something like Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages as of   to have categories sorted by date. Once a category is 30+ days old, pages meeting the criteria could be deleted. As for pages currently in CAT:TEMP, they would sit for 30 days and after that, if they meet the criteria they could be deleted. The existence of the criteria won't attract admins, but listing it on CAT:CSD would. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. —Kurykh 04:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ummm, it is possible.  Look for a tag that says "sockpuppet" , "multiple accounts", or anything like that.  And we are already deleting these pages; this proposal would just make it easier to find the correct ones to deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a new CSD just simply isn't worth the effort (and drama) when G6 or a customized edit summary can simply be used. </2cents> --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sweet! Where's the list? -- lucasbfr talk 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New criteria proposal 

message: I think that CSD R2 should be expanded to include redirects from the Template namespace. Such redirects usually serve no purpose. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean a page in the template namespace which is a redirect to a page in another namespace?  What about userboxes that have been migrated but not all incoming links have been changed? Happy‑melon 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That problem would be very simple to fix. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 1) Do you have an example of a redirect that you're talking about?  2) How often do these occur?  In several months of monitoring WP:RFD, I can't remember any such redirects coming up.  That would tend to indicate that the volume is very low.  Rossami (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  expand CSD R2 to include redirects from the Template namespace 

message: There is no csd for lists that simply duplicates existing categories.  Not sure if it is common enough to warrant it's own criteria.  Can GSD 6 apply to these types of lists? Taemyr (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No - use WP:PROD instead. It's not the type of deletion suitable for speedy deletion - sometimes the list has functionality that a category doesn't (I have seen AfDs of lists which "duplicate categories" kept), and deciding whether it duplicates a category or not is a subjective judgement which speedy deletion is not intended to be. --Hut 8.5 18:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was completely unavare of WP:CLS when prodding this, so it's clearly not an issue that should go under speedy. Taemyr (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[List_of_real_estate_topics]] a GSD 6 candidate? 

message: I'm not totally sure whether we need a special CSD criterion for "blatant advertising". In my experience, A7 tends always to be available as an alternative to G11; most ad-spam-type articles on companies also lack any assertion of notability. And where we see an article that appears to be advertising but does contain an assertion of notability, it probably shouldn't be speedied anyway; just because an article reads like advertising doesn't necessarily mean that the company is non-notable. So I don't see that there are any speediable cases which fall under G11 but aren't already adequately covered by A7. 
I realise there are some admins who have more CSD experience than me, though, so I await other views. WaltonOne 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, we do seem to need G11. I've had about the opposite experience: spammy articles tend to not meet A7 because of their promotional nature. Most PR stuff talks about how great the person/product/company/etc. is, which will usually inadvertently hit upon an assertion of importance such that the article can't legitimately be deleted under A7. G11 also helps us with the surprisingly common practice where people just copy press releases, official bios etc. Into Wikipedia. Often they will try to release the rights, then it's still a useless article because it was only written for promotional purposes. --W.marsh 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need CSD G11?