Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28

message: This was claimed to be "discussed on the talk page". If so, guess I missed it. When I've seen the matter discussed, the general consensus seemed to be that schools are organizations, and must assert notability like any other. A7 is also often used and rarely challenged in practice for schools. I never saw a consensus to add this line, so I see no need for a consensus to remove it. Where is this supposed discussion? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is here. :) It's been in the policy for about six weeks now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Very short discussion as to schools, and I was out of town then, so that explains it. To be clear, then, I object. Schools are organizations, and despite the fact that it's asserted this is "controversial", school speedies on genuine garbage articles generally go unchallenged. (For that matter, so do many others, I don't have a problem ignoring silly things on products and the like, and that usually doesn't get challenged either.) If it's truly controversial, they'll all get taken to DRV anyway, but in practice this rarely happens. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally have strong feelings about it, although I can well understand that the deletion of school articles is typically controversial given that the whole question of what constitutes notability in schools is constantly under debate. (We seem to be on our fourth guideline proposal now.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have seen school deletions under A7 overturned at DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 27. Hut 8.5 18:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asserting that a school speedy has never been overturned at DRV. I am quite certain there are speedies of bios, websites, bands, companies, and organizations that have been overturned at DRV. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be speedyable, only that the admin's judgment was off in that particular case or that new information came to light. That's not a reason to forbid speedying it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, reading that DRV, a lot of the objection was based on the wording added here, and that DRV happened after the change here. Do you have any that occurred before that was added? Policy should describe what's being done in practice, not attempt to alter it. In practice, this seems a backdoor attempt to stop schools from being speedied when before they quite frequently were without challenge, to create a bit of a feedback loop here ("well policy says don't do it, so now we won't let you do it since the policy says so, well we don't let you do it in practice, so now policy says so"). It's supposed to work the other way around—something's supposed to actually happen in practice and then get put into policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite all right to work by proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus to implement it, at least according to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The point here is the basic principal that a speedy should be something upon which everyone reasonable with some experience at WP can agree. we agree about vandalism and garage bands that have never played a gig. We agree about blatant copyright infringement, unused categories, and user requests. No one can realistically claim we agree about schools from the point of view of notability. So what we do not agree abut has to be discussed. DGG (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely sure of that. Can you show me a one-liner "X is an elementary school in Y" which has been kept at AfD? I've never seen it happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not quite the right standard to use in evaluating whether CSD can be applied.  The right question is "Can you show me a one-liner "X is an elementary school in Y" where no reasonable members of the community made credible arguments against deletion?"  CSDs are deliberately limited to the very narrow circumstances where every reasonable editor would reach the same conclusion upon viewing the article.  And while I personally think that articles about individual schools have no place in the encyclopedia for several reasons, the fact is that a number of good editors disagree and that there have been articles about elementary schools which, when discussed, were expanded to the point that the elementary school page was kept.  Rossami (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  In answer to Seraphimblade's question, usually the article in question is expanded during the course of discussion. An examination of the schoolwatch archives seems to indicate that articles on elementary schools, if nominated for deletion, nowadays have about a 50% change of surviving the discussion.  Even a good proportion of articles on infant schools seem to survive these days.  --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: the other reason is that most primary school articles never reach AfD any more--they are   merged without opposition, or PRODded--and then usually merged. They ones that get there are either the ones that in fact can be improved, and are, or the ones where someone puts up an inevitably hopeless opposition. Putting up a PROD gives the opportunity for fixing them that speedy does not. The type of articles for which speedy is appropriate are the ones that are hopelessly useless as is, not fixable, and not going to be rationally defended.DGG (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merger I can go for. I suppose the worst of the bunch (the boosterish and attack ones) go under G11 or G10, respectively, anyway, so I'll go for that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There is also a good deal of no context, where they dont even say where the school is located. "XHS is a great high school" would not even be enough for a directory .DGG (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As with schools?" 

message: this is, I'm sure you'll agree, completely uncontroversial, and I was on the verge of simply claiming it as WP:CSD#G8, with which it shares many similarities.  I've done a couple of these in the five days I've had my admin bit, so I was wondering: should deletions of documentation pages like this be recorded under G8 or G6?  Would it be beneficial to add a phrase to G8 indicating that things like this are included? Happy‑melon 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can just delete them; that's why you have admin tools. There's no reason why every deletion has to cite or meet a CSD criterion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, admins can use IAR or common sense -- not that they should just delete what they feel like deleting. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean, and if that way of phrasing it makes more sense to you then I'm all for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template documentation pages 

message: :U4: use of userspace as an archive for deleted material.
After the whole adult-child sex subpage debacle which ended up with half of the people !voting to speedy, and after long precedent, I think it's time we put it in writing. Will (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "G4" is for all pages; maybe just adding a sentence onto the end specific to non-article space? Daniel (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: G4 doesn't apply to userspace or if they've made a few changes to the page, unfortunately. Will (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm proposing to alter it so it does. G4 does apply to all namespacesas a "G" criteria, but apparently the current definition makes it unenforcable in userspace, so why not fix it so it does? :) Daniel (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We have to make sure this doesn't hit people who are working on a draft of something that has been deleted in order to overcome the reasons that led to its deletion, as this is perfectly legitimate. Hut 8.5 13:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  And given the judgment necessary to make that distinction, I don't think that this proposal will work as a speedy deletion candidate.  Speedy-deletions need to be narrowly defined to situations where every reasonable editor looking at the page will reach the same conclusion.  In this case, you need to divine the user's intent - is this a legitimate attempt to repair an article or is it an attempt to circumvent the deletion decision.  That is something on which there is a high likelihood that reasonable editors will not automatically agree.  Keep sending these to MfD where more than one person can help with the decision about the user's intent.  Rossami (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thirded. MfD and  seem like better venues for these types of deletions. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The usual position on userspace recreations has been that they're ok if done to enable the user to fix the problem necessitating deletion in the first place (unless the problem is unfixable, like copyright problems etc). I can see some merit in deleting recreations that a user has abandoned work on, but I don't see how existing mechanisms don't cover this already. --bainer (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  U4 proposal 

message: Added warning Watch out. Some redirect pages contain page history. It's probably not a good idea to speedy delete these.
Some people don't use redirects right, or put redirects over page history. As simply deleting such pages might cause GFDL compliance issues, and/or cause history of wikipedia to be lost (in the project namespace), it's not a good idea to delete such redirects. (I've actually made references to history of redirected pages in discussions. It's a long story as to all the possible ways things can go wrong). 
At any rate, it's not a great idea to speedy redirects with history, so Don't Do That. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If only it were possible for a speedy deletion template for redirects to detect the presence of non-redirect versions in the history, a big blinking warning could be added. *sigh* — CharlotteWebb 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I shudder to think of the modifications that would need to be made to the mediawiki software to permit that sort of check :D. Happy‑melon 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot could do it. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would a bot have time?  The usual lag between tagging and deletion is very small.  Rossami (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was discussion earlier about the idea of using a bot to increase the lag time between tagging and deletion. (Though as far as I know maybe nobody who knows how to write bots yet was involved.) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Speedying redirects with histories is a bad idea for two reasons: 1) Many redirects are created after merging the original contents of the page into another article. Deleting the history of such a redirect might delete the history of content that is still present on Wikipedia, which could run afoul of the GFDL requirements. 2) Within the histories of many redirects is information that is encyclopedic and could be merged out of the history at some point in the future. Indeed, many redirects are even created as an act of vandalism or at the very least without consensus. Deleting such a page would amount to a completely out of process deletion of non-speediable material. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects warning 

message: Criterion G9 says, in pertinent part: "The Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedily delete a page temporarily in cases of exceptional circumstances". It would seem to me that the Foundation has the right to delete a page permanently or indefinitely as well. I doubt there's any time limit on an Office Action-related deletion. So I'm wondering if we should remove the word "temporarily" from this criterion. szyslak 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as office action puts it, office actions are temporary. I could be wrong, but I get the idea that it's "temporary" in the sense that it can precede discussion of the issue, and not that they're reserving the right to just circumvent procedure entirely (which they could do if they wanted to, anyway). Someguy1221 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the office wants a page removed, it's not just going to be deleted.  At the very least it will be oversighted, and maybe even purged from the database by the developers.  So I think "temporarily" is actually quite appropriate: temporarily deleted pending complete obliteration :D. Happy‑melon 15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD G9 

message: What is the status of pages that describe a rumour, intends to clarify the rumour status and indicates that no official information is currently available? For example company xyz is rumoured be bringing out a camera of model 9D. Would a page, covering the subject, for example 'xyz 9D', indicating the page describes a rumoured camera be considered okay, or subject for speedy deletion? If it is a gray zone, what sort of information would ensure the page would be kept, since most references are likely to based on sketchy facts, like "representant x suggested y", and "this fits in with the current time line". I ask, because having created a page that was intended to indicate rumour status, I am now wondering whether it was the right thing to do. --AJ Mas (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Wikipedia's basic standard for inclusion is verifiability. If the rumor is not reported on by reliable sources, it almost certainly is not a valid basis for an article.  If it is, it may be both notable and verifiable enough to include an article, depending on the circumstances. For instance, even verifiable rumors are generally not enough to write an article about a future film, as the notability guidelines on films indicate that only films in production are typically notable enough for an article. This question arises enough that Wikipedia has developed a specialized term to describe it: "crystal". If the article you created does not meet the sourcing requirements, you may want to tag it with  to request its removal until the article can be created as fact, not rumor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It might not be speedy-deletable but as Moodriddengirl said, a page about such a rumor should definitely be deleted through the regular processes under WP:CRYSTAL.  Articles about future events should not be written until the future event has actually occurred and the event has demonstrated long-term impact on society or other notable reason for inclusion.  Rossami (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in the rare case that the rumor itself is notable (as opposed to it simply being a widespread but unverified or incorrect belief about a notable subject), then sources can be found.  I can't think of any examples but its close cousins the urban legend, the hoax, and the campy conceit (e.g. Elvis lives among us) do sometimes pop up as articles.Wikidemo (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours 

message: :The following was originally posted here
I understand deleting unused fair use images, but why delete perfectly good templates just because they aren't in use? If it's a vanity, userbox, etc. template I also understand. In my opinion many other things should be first in line for deletion before informational templates. I don't think unused free images are deleted, are they? Free templates should be given the same treatment. This is pure bureaucracy just for the heck of it.--Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Anybody home? --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I have no idea if this is why the criterion exists (I forget) but this criterion would limit the accidental use of obsolete templates, so that discussion on how a template should appear can be performed on a single version at any one time. Why not just redirect them...I have no idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Unused free images are indeed deleted on IfD when it appears they are unlikely to be used in an article. The word people use for that is "unencyclopedic". In the case of unused templates, they have been deleted because they no longer serve a useful purpose, as part of general housekeeping. Of course there is no requirement that everyone has to go around looking for unused templates, or unencyclopedic images.  But if someone chooses to spend their time tidying up old templates, it's their volunteer time to allot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. While I am not fond of the phrase, Wikipedia is not paper. "Housekeeping" is not an excuse for bulldozing unused rooms in a home where construction never stops and money is no option. If somebody leaves, that does not mean that somebody will not move in sometime in the future. As long as no other rules are broken, it should not be deleted. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unused templates generally just create clutter. Their existence can be a cause of distraction (e.g. if an editor is forced to spend time comparing two templates), confusion (e.g. new editors may not understand why there are two templates for the same thing, and this may discourage them from using one or the other), or inconsistency (e.g. different editors may use different templates on different articles). I think a more apt analogy for template deletion would be the act of throwing out bent paper clips scattered throughout an office. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think we are talking about the same thing. I understand deleting templates that have been replaced. Just because a perfectly good paperclip is not attached to a group of papers at the moment is no reason to toss it in the trash. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be... I had in mind templates that have been obsoleted or are single-use instances of a more general template; I wasn't referring to templates that may be useful but are simply not used at the moment. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why delete unused templates? 

message: I had a discussion about speedily deleting redirects from Talk: pages to other Talk: pages, which some admins seem to be doing. If this is not policy, may I suggest that WP:CSD#R be amended to reflect that? I was confused by the wording myself until an admin explained it to me. — Zerida ☥ 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide an example?  Because if you're talking about a redirect created as a result of a pagemove, they definitely ought not to be speedy-deleting those pages.  Rossami (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not necessarily true. If a new page is created after a move, then the talk page should definitely not redirect. The talk page belongs to the new page. I normally would just blank the talk page in a case like that, but there is nothing wrong with deleting it. However, that's covered by G6 in my opinion and doesn't require a change. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was referring to redirects to Talk: namespace as a result of page moves or merges. Almost every move I've made that is more than weeks old has had its Talk: redirect speedied. If this is something that is frequently done, I would suggest that policy reflect that more specifically--either adding something to that effect to R and G6, or otherwise, that it should not be done if it is not policy to avoid confusion. One page I tagged was deleted, then restored by another admin who disagreed. — Zerida ☥ 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I clearly disagree with the decision to speedy those redirects.  The WikiMedia software creates those redirects for a reason.  If there is consensus that the reason is no longer applicable, then the people who think the reasons have changed should be lobbying to change the way the software works, not making an end run around the tool.  Rossami (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an example of what he means is Talk:Battle of Tel al-Kebir.  If your an admin, you can see the underlying issue, but it was a page move to Talk:Battle of Tel el-Kebir and the "al" version was deleted. MBisanz talk 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This and those moves I made before it. I do feel that some further clarification in the policy itself would be helpful. BTW, it's "she". — Zerida ☥ 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In that case, there is no reason to have deleted the talk page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Talk pages for articles should not redirect to different articles (except for limited cases where consolidation has been deemed necessary). The WikiMedia software creates the redirects out of convenience. If the convenience does the wrong thing, then we are not bound to by the software to do the wrong thing. However, that is only applicable to the specific case I mentioned. If the redirects Zerida is referring to are all of the type MBisanz found, then I agree those deletions are not necessary. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In a move there is usually no need to keep the old redirect, since the old talk page content moves to the new one--can anyone suggest any possible purpose whatsoever? In a merge, the is a possibility that there is significant content on both of the pages, and unless the talk pages content is also fully merged, it may be necessary to keep the old. DGG (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, that was the question I was asked but on the other end, namely what purpose does it serve to delete it? I figured if it were a candidate for speedy deletion (which is not clear), there was no point in keeping an empty talk page. — Zerida ☥ 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I can suggest one purpose - if the talk page being moved has a decent number of incoming links, it's better for them not to turn red after the move. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had checked for incoming links on the talk page in question before tagging, but there was none. I want to clarify that most of the Talk: page redirects that were deleted after a move I made were done at the discretion of the deleting admin, not because they were tagged. Anyone has a suggestion for rewording the section on redirects to make it clearer about this point? — Zerida ☥ 03:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The simple suggestion is stop deleting the redirects resulting from pagemoves.  Even if they serve little value, there is even less value to the project from deleting them.  They do no harm, they consume no extra space and they aren't in anyone's way.  As you asked two lines up, what purpose is served by deletion?  Rossami (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if there was a way to get admins not to delete the pages. By rewording the policy a bit, we could clarify that they are not necessary. See the message left on Talk:Egypt under Muhammad Ali and his successors for another example. — Zerida ☥ 04:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such deletions should not be done. If a user bookmarks a talk page in his/her web browser, we are breaking that user's link that way. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: I notice that although we have  templates on the standard  format, they are actually almost entirely unused; with templates like  being used instead; these do not follow the db-meta format, which is based on .  The formatting difference, combined with an absence of backlinks to WP:CSD to note which CSD criterion the image falls under, has the effect of largely dissociating image maintenance from CSD, which might or might not be a bad thing.  What does everyone think - should the csd templates in the image namespace follow the  format, or is the current format, which is standardised within the image namespace but is different to the other templates, acceptable? Happy‑melon 18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardisation 

message: A bot has been proposed, and is now actually running, that is by itself placing speedy tags on articles automatically and unsupervised. Among other things, it is making its own judgment on no-context, and is marking no-content on articles within seconds of its creation. The discussion is at []. 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot tagging speedy 

message: FYI, whatever template was added here isn't working correctly. The link which should go to Talk:American Leadership Project is instead going to User talk:American Leadership Project. Too busy IRL to try and sort this out myself right now. -- Kendrick7talk 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone even know which template this is? -- Kendrick7talk 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was . Let's have a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out! I don't know much about templates. I use them more or less like I use my car, with faith that they will work correctly. But this one seems fixed now based on the tests I've done on my own user talk page. It looks like it went wacky here, and I do not know with what rationale. I've simply put it back in line with the other notices. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken user page notification template 

message: I would like to propose that A3 be reworded to add soft redirects to the list of things exempted from it, in addition to the current exemption for disambiguations.  Soft redirects are a valid mechanism on the project, and are in fairly wide and growing use, with over 1200 of them on the project at last count.  Like regular redirects and disambiguations, they are generally short, with little content of their own.  The most common soft redirects are to Wiktionary, showing where people can go for common terms that offer little encyclopedic content beyond a dictionary definition.
Soft redirects are in common use, and IMHO should not be subject to A3 deletion for a characteristic that is inherent in their nature.  They cannot help being short, because that's what they are.
For previous debate on this subject, check out this AFD discussion and this attempt to get a discussion going on the issue (though the latter didn't get much response.) 
New wording would be something along the lines of:
*No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion.
- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously from my other comments, I agree with you that A3 does not and never has applied to soft-redirects like  but do you really think this is a common enough mistake to justify adding to an already over-long page?  I only see one editor who misunderstood the policy in the discussion you cited above.  Do we have any reason to believe that these are being deleted more widely?  Rossami (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know of two so far, and that's just on the small sample of 50+ of internet slang that I actively monitor.  Short of setting up a tracking page for all 1200+ current soft redirects, I'm not sure how we can know just how many of these are A3 deleted.  I'm seriously thinking of setting up such a tracking page, as it would indeed let me get a handle on the situation.  But as things currently stand, we have a valid and useful project mechanism that can be validly A3 deleted at will.  The ease with which these can be A3 speedied makes it much harder to consider soft redirects to be a useful mechanism on an ongoing basis.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If soft redirects are not supposed to be deleted, then I think the CSD should not be worded to state or imply that they should be deleted.  It might be hard to find out how many are deleted by accident;  someone might start deleting them in future; and I think it's better not to deliberately set up reasons for people to follow different rules from what's written -- there are enough of those situations that come up accidentally or inevitably. So yes, I support the proposed addition of a couple of words. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to A3 

message: Sometimes, one comes across pages, that could be best describes as graffiti. They usually hold bold claims like "Joe Smith is the greatest guy in the world!", "The Rolling BeatGees are the greatest band ever", etc, etc. In my opinion, these should be clear candidates for speedy deletion. However, there is currently no criterion to delete them under. A1 does not apply, because a (minimal) context is provided, nor does A7, as there is a assertion of notability. G3 would be the best bet and the closest thing to a matching criterion, but vandalism is always a word to avoid, as vandalism in the wiki sense assumes bad faith. Now assuming that the creator of the article really thinks that the Rolling BeatGees are the greatest band ever, and this user doesn't know criteria for inclusion, maybe thinks that Wikipedia should be used as some sort of blog, we can safely say that the user placed that article there in good faith. Are there any options left to speedily delete such an article? And if there aren't, would a new criterion for these types of articles, or an expansion of another criterion (possibly A1 or A3) be in order? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are soundly deletable under A7; an adjective ending in "est" does not an assertion make.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My standard is whether a reasonable person would possibly think they were notable in terms of any reasonable interpretation of an encyclopedia. Not whether they know our standards exactly, but whether there is any reason to think a case can be made. Nobody could reasonably think that a band that had never played a gig or released a recording is notable, or an author who had not yet published a book--to give the most common examples. Or a high school student whose main accomplishment is getting admitted to college, or who played on the school team.  People, frankly, are the easy part of this. Companies or  clubs can be much harder. But maybe we should discuss a few real disputable borderline cases for people. DGG (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there are assertions that are hard to call. The "wiki graffiti" examples given in the opening post, however, are as far from any grey area as you can get; empty puffery depending from no assertion whatever.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A7 is not for deleting non-notable articles. Notability is not a part of any CSD criterion nor should be. If you like to snowball, cite IAR. Dcoetzee 09:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's some actual questionable ones, from today's batch--opinions invited
#:Scott McGrew is a technology reporter for NBC owned KNTV. He appears on the morning news program during the weekdays and TechNow Saturday nights. According to the station's online biography he has been with the station for seven years.
#:Jonathan Pierson is the creator of commonun.com and CEO of Organa Incorporated. DGG (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I decline more speedies than your average admin, and I accept A7s of the sort under discussion here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: possible misunderstanding: when I said "questionable" I did not mean ones I though necessarily invalid A7s--I meant ones that I thought would be borderline. These two are ones where I am not sure of my response., not ones I though obviously invalid.  DGG (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that could be covered under the "chat-like comments" clause of A3. ViperSnake151 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki graffiti, when good faith can be dragged in (by it's hairs) 

message: I realize this may be a case of "deja vu all over again" for many of you, but I have concerns that CSD-T3 is seeing considerable use beyond its stated scope.  Specifically, rather than being used only where a template is orphaned, and duplicates a specific other template, it seems to be being used en masse on all orphaned templates not tagged as "transclusionless", and omitting either a named other template this is being 'deprecated' in favour of, or any stated other rationale.  I urge rewording of this template to follow that of the CSD clause more closely, and to restore the mandatory nature of the detailed deletion rationale.  (Though why on earth not just turn these into redirects or parameterised transclusions, if they're actually being used in line with the stated scope of T3?)  See my detailed comment here.  Alai (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It would be cumbersome to put in the name of the template that has been superseded; and from my experience, in a lot of cases, these templates have been superseded by not having a template at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinions on this issue are already recorded, and are largely in line with Alai's.  While I do not deny that the majority of the templates recently deleted under WP:CSD#T3 will not be missed, I agree with Alai that T3 is regularly applied far outside its remit.  A "deprecated and orphaned template that no longer serves a useful purpose" is quite simply not elegible for deletion under T3 unless it is, specifically, an instance/duplicate/inferior alternative to another template that a thorough deleting admin should have to find to confirm that the template is elegible, and that the other template really does make a satisfactory alternative.  If such a template has to exist in order for T3 to apply, why not provide it in the CSD template, to make the deleting admin's job easier??  I would also like to point out that a template that "has been superceded by not having a template at all" is not elegible for T3, as it doesn't meet any one of the necessary criteria!  Happy‑melon 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: HM:  quite.  MZ:  candidly, I have very little sympathy with the "cumbersome" argument, since IMO the entire exercise is largely unnecessary, and is imposing a burden of effort onto others.  So "streamlining" the process to facilitate mass-tagging doesn't seem at all a sensible priority, as it's (further) prioritising the time and convenience of those wishing to purge a (fairly moderate, in the grand scheme of things) number of templates, over that of those who wish to continue using same, in the cases where they're not, in fact, "useless".  So such a process that would be more "cumbersome" for you would not only be more accurate, it'd impose at least two layers less effort on others: by having slower throughput overall (for what's at best a profoundly non-urgent task, if not borderline for being a "task" at all), and by having fewer of those tagged be T3-false-positives.  If you really wish to tag non-duplicated templates (or indeed, templates you don't wish to go to the effort of finding the counterparts for), then either argue for an explicit widening of T3, or tag them by some other method.  Alai (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about G6 (housekeeping)? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say I'm thrilled about the lack of specificity of that one, but it at least has the merit of not being outright inaccurate and inapplicable.  If there's wider support for using it in that manner, I shall endeavour not to grumble (too much).  Alai (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would much rather have seen  deleted under G6 than T3, yes.  As was mentioned innumerable times in the T3 discussion, T3 is very much a fork of G6 for a narrow range of cases: anything which is a good CSD candidate but not clearly T3 belongs under G6, IMO. Happy‑melon 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (e.c.) Well, personally, I don't care which criterion is used. I want to give people seven days (for cases of substitution, etc.) and I want to notify the original author. Both of those things I've been doing. If you prefer G6, I can update the CSD template being used (it's a wrapper template that can point anywhere) and I can update the message that's substituted to users. (On a side note, G6 seems to have semi-acceptance for this purpose -- WP:DOT used to use it, and I've spoken with other admins who regularly use it for cases like this.) Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree with author-notification and with a seven-day period.  One might indeed argue that which template to use is in many respects something of a nicety.  My real concern is in the area of how well-defined a class of templates "cases like this" and/or "good CSD candidate" actually is.  I'm pretty skeptical that "orphaned" is, by itself, a very good indicator of "suitable for enqueuing as presumptively deletable", by whatever mechanism, if there's not some reasonable level of examination of the individual cases somewhere in the loop.  And ideally, right at the start of said loop, at the tagging stage.  That's why I'm not too convinced we can immediately go from "some orphaned templates have been deleted on such grounds" to "let's tag all orphaned templates for deletion on those grounds".  Alai (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: T3 was created to address a very practical issue - that a duplicate template may be used instead of the correct original one - and clearly loses nothing, since the original template can be used wherever the duplicate template may have been. There is no compelling reason, on the other hand, to delete merely orphaned templates, particularly in light of the fact that an orphaned template may be as yet unused but still potentially useful. There is no quick or objective way to determine whether a template is likely to be used in the future. Orphaned templates should not be eligible under T3 or G6. Dcoetzee 09:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my personal feeling too.  I have no particular objection to "housekeeping" deletions of templates on a case by case basis, where individual judgement's been excerised as to the clear and present uselessness or redundancy is concerned.  OTOH, mass-tagging of orphans with "opt outs" puts the presumption the wrong way, for me.  If anyone particularly wants to slim down the database by 20k items, look at the numerous redirects-from-case that give no benefit to search, are themselves "orphans", that would be outright errors if they were ever linked to, and serve only to clutter up served pages with "redirected from" messages.  Alai (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  T3 revisited 

message: (aka )
These seem to be entirely different templates, but both are referenced here an both will bring you here and both have similar language as to the 7 day waiting period.  The first doesn't seem to be anything like an ordinary CSD template and isn't listed in the table.  The second is a standard CSD template but doesn't appear to be mentioned in the description of I6, only listed in the table.  Also the first one, even though it refers people here, seems to put the images in ; whereas the second one puts the articles in ; I'm confused.  Also, why is the first one subst?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I raised this issue above, but got no response.  Essentially the di- templates are fully-protected duplicates of the CSD#I series (, , etc), which categorise into various wierd and wonderful categories rather than CAT:CSD or its subcategories.  There is some merit for the argument that templates in the Image namespace shouldn't necessarily be based on , but if these templates are kept separate, they desperately need standardisation.  There's no reason why  can't be switched to display an ambox format in most namespaces, but something more along the (admittedly very eye-catching) lines of . The question is, do we want all of BetacommandBot's image taggings being added to CAT:CSD?? Happy‑melon 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why we wouldn't want that, but if one is manually tagging and using CSD as a reference, they get conflicting instructions as to the proper tag.  Also, when you tag, the template will tell people that the image is a "Candidate for Speedy Deletion", and link them here.  It's all very confusing and needs some clean-up after we figure out exactly how we want things.  Any idea why we'd want the di templates subst.?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the difference in usage for these I-6 templates 

message: I have boldly added the above text as CSD#R4. -- Cat chi? 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't dispute the appropriateness of speedy deleting such redirects, but I have always found G6 enough for that. (1 == 2)Until 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the cases of newly created self-redirect pages that would not be a solution. Fundamentally I want to have a  template to handle these. -- Cat chi? 18:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this type of thing come up frequently enough to merit a separate criterion? (Also, why would G6 not be applicable to newly-created self-redirect pages?) Black Falcon (Talk) 18:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned something like six of them today. I do not believe frequency has anything to do with this. I'd prefer not to interpret G6 to handle redirects. -- Cat chi? 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frequency is important, to avoid instruction creep (see #Read this before proposing new criteria). Why would you hesitate to apply G6 to looping redirects: it would, after all, constitute "non-controversial maintenance" and "cleaning up redirects"? Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't 'instruction creep' to point out a special case for redirects. I suppose CSD#R1 can be amended to include CSD#R4. Would that work? -- Cat chi? 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that redirect loops are broken redirects, as defined in R1. However, if you feel clarification is needed of R1, I think that would be more appropriate than adding a criterion. Personally, I interpret the spirit of criteria like G6 and R1 to cover cases like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the wording of R4 into R1, leaving out the note about checking the page history (that's is/should be a required step before any deletion, not just deletion of redirects). Black Falcon (Talk) 22:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see the point, myself. Most often, these are errors that can be fixed by changing the redirect to point to the correct target.  There is no need to encourage deletion when fixing is better. As for those few that cannot be fixed, G6 covers it fine. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I always use R1 when Scepbot stumbles upon circular redirects. Will (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Four separate criteria for redirects seems a bit absurd. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be an extension of CSD R1 - why not write it into there? I deleted self-redirects "under R1" before it was worded to explicitly include those. The logic is simple - I understand it as including any redirect which wouldn't lead to a non-redirect page eventually. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Given the new wording, I submitted a patch for the redirect script to take the load off the owner's shoulders, which works (yay). Seeing as there's nothing wrong with the wording (it's been practice for some time, and no-one's opposed to it), I'll tag this as resolved. Will (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD#R4 

message: I would propose a new general category for speedy deletion:
*Articles or images submitted in PDF and similar formats that do not allow direct editing or inclusion in Wikipedia articles.
A couple of these have turned up on AfD over the past couple days:
*
*
These are apparently intended articles submitted as PDFs.
Submissions in this format are possibly GFDL violations, because GFDL requires copies to be "transparent", and says that "(y)ou may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."  My understanding of the PDF format is that it is designed to enable authors to preserve their text and formatting inviolate, although the GFDL itself states that "PDF designed for human modification" is a transparent file format; my understanding is that the PDF format and the Adobe free reader is designed to allow PDF creators to allow or disallow modifications and even text selection for cut and paste, at their option.  GFDL also says that "(a)n image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text," and many PDF files I have seen contain only a sequence of scans of the original pages.
Whether submissions like this are GFDL compatible or not, they break just about everything else.  They can't be wikified using ordinary syntax; instead, external links would have to be manually inserted into the PDF document itself.  They can't be edited by people who don't have PDF writing software.  
While PDF files might be useful in other Wikimedia projects, I can't imagine why Wikipedia itself would ever need or use them.  It seems an appropriate subject for a blanket rule.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't thought in detail about the merits yet, but I would strongly recommend reformulating the proposed category in terms of a clearly stated policy violation, e.g. a file format which cannot be further edited, before there is any further discussion. CSD categories need to clearly refer to the policies they implement and need to be generic, not favoring or disfavoring particular companies or non-Wikimedia technologies. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking at these examples, they are clearly deletable but I question whether this is occuring often enough to justify a new speedy-deletion criterion.  (See bullet 3 of #Read this before proposing new criteria.)  There is an astonishing amount of overhead that goes with the creation and maintenance of a new speedy category.  I'd want to see several dozens more examples and some evidence that this is an on-going problem before pulling the trigger on a new criterion here.  Rossami (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written a computer program to analyse data from the Jan 2008 database dump to generate some statistics on the number of PDFs Wikipedia has. In December 2007 (the most recent month for which my data is complete) 496 PDF files were uploaded to Wikipedia. Previous months are similar. Even two years earlier (December 2005) 89 PDFs were uploaded, so this problem has clearly been around for some time. The program also reckons there are nearly 2000 PDF files currently on Wikipedia (if someone wants to investigate them I'll post the list in my userspace). Hut 8.5 20:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to learn whether any of these PDFs are actually used in articles?  and if so, what for?  It's always possible that PDF files are useful here in ways that my limited imagination has not figured out. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a list of PDF files on Wikipedia at User:Hut 8.5/PDFs. I've been looking through the list (and have nominated some of the really bad ones for deletion), and I have yet to see one which is actually used in an article. A few were uploaded in order to get information out of them for an article, and it might be possible to turn a few more into legitimate encyclopedia articles, but most of them should be deleted one way or another. Hut 8.5 18:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - this is most informative.  I went through and tagged some of them myself.  It seems that the issues raised by these files do need to be addressed somehow, somewhere.I see you've nominated an entire series of images of text in Arabic script as images for deletion. (:Image:Ahmorg1.pdf et. seq.)  If we take this as attempts to submit text, due regard for ritual suggests that, if these are attempts to submit information, they need to spend two weeks at Pages Needing Translation before being proposed for deletion.  PDF files are transgressive in other ways; there's some confusion as to whether their deletion should be discussed as articles, or as images.  It seems to me to be simpler to say simply that PDF ain't allowed, rather than to go through them on a case by case basis.  Unless, of course, there's a good reason not to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, it's rather annoying the way the various templates bark at you when you use them on texts submitted as images in PDF formats.  (See, e.g., :Image:PurgatoryBelongsToSatan.pdf)  Would it be possible to fix them so that PDF files can be submitted to either page?  On AfD the consensus seems to be that text in PDF form is their bailiwick. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it very likely that content contained within a handwritten letter will be useful for any encyclopedia article (and three of that editor's images have already been deleted at IfD: :Image:Ahmorg20.pdf, :Image:Ahmorg21.pdf, :Image:Ahmorg22.pdf. You can list them at PNT if you like though (or make a note at IfD to that effect). Hut 8.5 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If they're attempted article submissions, why not just talk to the original author and ask them to merge their contents into articles and then request deletion of the PDF? Or do this for them? No sense deleting good content. Dcoetzee 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dcoetzee. I don't think articles in PDF form should be speedied; assuming the article is valid (that is, it would not be speediable for other reasons) the first thing to do is to just extract the text and replace the PDF with the text (and then request deletion of the PDF as CSD:G6 housekeeping). If that is not feasible, ask the author to do it (maybe there could be some boilerplate or a template for that), and if neither of these are feasible, then and only then propose deletion via PROD or AfD. --MCB (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For those PDFs that do not allow copy-and-paste, I think one might make a case that WP:CSD#I3 already covers it?  After all, it is "media" with an "improper license" (i.e. it does not meet GDFL if it is not transparent...) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm really considering deleting all the orphaned ones that are here for more than a month. They were obviously uploaded and forgotten. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. What do you think? Massive Mfd? -- lucasbfr talk 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see people objecting to such an MfD on the grounds that there's too many pages. We ought to go through them and see if any make decent articles/images at least. And the list provided by my program isn't comprehensive - it could have missed anything up to 20 or so. Perhaps a prod-type system (or just IfD) could be used. Hut 8.5 17:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also managed to compile a list of PDFs with links - User:Hut 8.5/PDFs with links. Hut 8.5 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to help you guys out, I've made a new template,  ViperSnake151 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new general category for speedy deletion: [[PDF]] 

message: I see that this list of criteria now contains a quite unqualified statement that all redirects to non-existent pages should be deleted, and there's a standard template to put on such pages, and bots to help make sure it's done fast and efficiently.
: 
I think it's important to the well-being of Wikipedia to remember that this came about because of bullies whose stated reasons for what they wanted to do were insincere.
: 
I don't know whether a day will eventually come when we will fix this problem, but we should remember how it came about.  There is a software bug: if you link to a redirect page that redirects to a non-existent page, then your link appears as a blue link; it should appear as a red link.  That was the real reason why some people were so opposed to links to non-existent pages, and some people were honest about that.  The list of criteria for speedy deletion included some exceptions; some links to non-existent pages were to be allowed.  They are useful when they redirect from plural to singular, or from a commonplace misspelling or misnomer to a correct term.  They prevented needless duplication of articles that would then have to get merged.  So people opposed to their existence (1) denied that the rules contained explicit exceptions, even though they were there in black-and-white on the criteria-for-speedy deletion page, and (2) denied that there were any reasons why anyone would want such "broken" redirects to exist, even when the reasons were patiently and thoroughly explained to them, and (3) denied the existence of people who disagreed with them about this, and (4) were abusive and disrespectful to such people.
: 
For now, those people have prevailed.  It is important to the well-being of Wikipedia that we remember how that happened. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are some strong accusations.  Could you post a link to a talk archive or something?  Mangojuicetalk 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what Michael Hardy is talking about, and don't have any links, but I think the point is that deleting such redirects is a bit pointless if the redirects need to be recreated once an article is created. The classic example is when people come across a set of three or four redlinks used in several articles, all of which should point to the same article, but with no existing article to point the redirects at (this is usually variants on a person's name). I think the best compromise that was ever worked out was to either have people create the pages in question (ie. create the non-yet-existing destination for the redirect, which runs into stubs versus red-links arguments), or to list the non-existent page and its possible redirects at WP:Articles for creation, in the hope that people tidying that page would notice if an article was created but someone forgot to create the redirects. I tried to list such a set of redirects on the talk pages of all the possible variants, effectively doing some of the groundwork for whoever created the article, but the talk pages got deleted as orphaned talk pages... Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects to non-existent pages 

message: What do products or objects come under? if I come across a page that says "Computer X is being developed by george smith, he thinks it will be ace". Well it's not about George's notability is it? --Fredrick day (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Products don't generally fall under any criteria. Although if it really would be shockingly uncontroversial to delete, you could consider G3, vandalism. The basic argument is that any content that would be reverted on sight (regardless of what article it's in) and lead to the poster's being warned/blocked could be considered vandalism if it's the sole content of a new page. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be a stretch to consider vandalism unless there were other evidence such as an on-going pattern in the contributor's edit history.  You might have a better argument under A1 (insufficient context for expansion) or A3 (keepable content so thin that it's really a mere restatement of the page title).  Generally though, I would recommend using the prod deletion process instead.  If that doesn't work, what Frederick described would be a pretty straight-forward AFD under the WP:CORP guidelines (which do cover products).  Rossami (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to A1 and A3, G11 (blatant vandalism) also sometimes applies. Since a claim of vandalism involves an allegation of intent to disrupt, I think criterion G3 (vandalism) should be used fairly rarely. And, as Rossami notes, PROD and AFD are always options. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you bothered to read what I wrote, I'm referring specifically to content that would be reverted on sight (regardless of what article it's in) and lead to the poster's being warned/blocked. Anyone can easily write an article that bypasses the criteria (Let's say someone giving a very detailed description of how he likes his toast, he can make it clearly coherent, full of context, and maybe even referenced to a personal website). There's no reason to bother with prods if you would block the guy for posting it in an existing article. And if you would do just that, you've already passed the threshold for vandalism. A lot of people don't realize this. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not intend to suggest that G3 could not be applied in the circumstances you noted, but rather to note that such circumstances are relatively rare. Many articles that end up being speedied are created in good faith and do not justify a warning or block against the article creator (repeated creation of speedy-able article is another matter...). In the absence of a consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour, I would prefer to avoid making any judgment regarding the intent of a user (it is, after all, intent that defines vandalism) except in the most blatant cases. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  products 

message: I've changed the category to :Category:Redirects from other template for the templates that are redirects to the other templates at :Category:Speedy deletion templates, since all the redirects are listed along with the speedy deletion templates that they redirect to. It should make finding a specific template in that category easier, as it separates the redirects from the actual templates. --Silver Edge (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation, and welcome, Silver Edge.  I'll take a closer look later.  Note that there was a discussion about doing something along those lines in the now-archived thread Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28#Double redirects in speedy templates, starting with my post of 14:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to this recategorisation.  Having both the raw templates and the redirects in one category is much more useful than burying them in :Category:Redirects from other template, especially given the finite and easily-manageable size of :Category:Speedy deletion templates.  For instance, the script MediaWiki:Sysop.js is used to preload deletion rationales for administrators patroling CAT:CSD.  As the script parses the wikitext of the page looking for deletion templates, modifying this script requires a knowledge of all the pseudonyms that may be used in place of the actual template name.  Being able to browse :Category:Speedy deletion templates for these redirects (especially since I spent several hours sorting them so that they appeared in the right order, underneath their respective live template) is much more useful than trawling WhatLinksHere for redirects, some of which might not be obvious.  I am reluctant to simply revert your recategorisation, as adding the links to :Category:Redirects from other template is certainly also useful, but why did you feel the need to remove the existing categorisation?  There is no reason why it must be a binary decision - they can quite easily be in both categories.  I would very much appreciate it if you would assist me in restoring the category links to :Category:Speedy deletion templates, with the sort keys they previously had. Happy‑melon 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having both category systems sounds like a good solution to me.  I wonder whether having them categorized in the right order would tend to be maintained in the long run, whereas I think subcategories would tend to be maintained.  I think I prefer having subcategories (in addition to the overall category perhaps) but am not sure and don't want to insist on it;  but I think if Happy-melon is doing stuff with bots that needs a single category, then that should be provided.  If there are subcategories, I think it's more important to have a subcategory of templates that are not redirects than a subcategory of ones that are. Sorry, Happy-melon, maybe I should have mentioned your previous objection more specifically. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really mind how else the templates and redirects are categorised as long as they all include a single category, sorted by CSD criterion, as they were before.  I personally think that having 43 subcategories is massive overkill, and one for each namespace is actually less useful than having them altogether.  But I really don't care one way or another as long as I can get my list back :D Happy‑melon 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 43 subcategories?  I didn't think there would be that many.  I guess I was thinking of lumping some of the smaller categories together "other speedy redirect templates" or something. Anyway, now I'm thinking of relying on your ordering system rather than putting work into developing a set of subcategories.  (I have enough to do just creating the new draft templates.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it would get a bit ridiculous, but most of the templates have about the same number of redirects, so if you were going to do it properly you would need one for each criterion.  I'll cook up a script or something to undo Silver Edge's recategorisation tomorrow.  Good work with the new templates, BTW - they're coming along nicely. Happy‑melon 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, OK, never mind the subcategories then.  Don't want 43 of them. :-)  And thanks for the  good words. It's taking me far longer than I thought, but I've kindof gotten into a rhythm with them.  Couldn't really do it with a bot, since I keep running across little differences among the templates.  Not that I've learned to do bots yet. (Thanks for the instructions though.) And good work putting the templates into order within the category in the first place. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Template:db-g8 uses  .  What's the difference between that and just plain  ?  Should I be putting the former instead of the latter on all the draft new templates?  It seems to have some additional features, but I haven't figured out what they are. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the only difference is a nicer title, with a little inline image to make it look prettier.  Still better than the bog-standard , though, so I'd recommend you use it on the new templates.  I've had MelonBot run through the existing templates converting, so you only need to worry about the new ones. Happy‑melon 10:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy-melon, would you please do me a favour and delete Template:speedybase, which has been superseded by db-meta/new?  Also perhaps delete the redirect Template:db-a4/new (not the page it redirects to), which I created by accident, not realizing that db-a4 was merely a redirect, but which has since been edited by Silver Edge and you re categories.  The redirect Template:db-a4 (the real one, not to be deleted) is currently protected, which I assume is also an accident, in which case please unprotect it. I don't want to put speedy-delete tags on  speedy-delete templates, as that could create confusion. :-)  I've blanked the two pages but if you think db-a4/new is useful, just revert the blanking.  Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All done.  You're right - putting speedy templates on CSD templates is likely to send people's heads in a spin!  Happy‑melon 20:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wasn't so much the immediate effect I was concerned with, as not wanting to get people in the habit of thinking funny-looking speedy template combinations were really supposed to be deleted.  :-) Thanks! --Coppertwig (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ObCategories: Template:db-bio didn't have a category, so I just added one.  Perhaps somebody (or somebot :-) would like to check whether there are any other templates ultimately transcluding db-meta or redirecting to pages that do that aren't in the speedy deletion template category.  (Maybe I could do this if/when I get started using bots;  a non-editing task, so relatively safe as a first try.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I'm in a dispute over whether an image should be deleted. Basically, the copyright holder of an image can not be identified. However, the image has survived an IFD and a DRV. The question is: does I7 fall under the "copyright infringement" rule, or just G12? Will (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I7 an exception, or just G12? 

message: I agree with barneca's proposal.  I have seen numerous occasions when articles that had clear assertions of notability were instantly deleted for lack of assertion of notability merely because the admin was an ignoramus who didn't understand the article, and then the admin and a chorus of cheerleaders attack the creator of the article and anyone who defends it in the most severe language they know how to use.  In one such case the creator was a world-famous scientist and the admin made me wonder if he could spell scientist.  When I see an article speedily deleted for lack of an assertion of notability, I now start from the presumption that the deleting admin is at best not paying attention to what he's doing. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deleters are even worse than barneca suggests 

message: Another possibility is placing a "candidate for speedy blanking" template on the page, and then if a second editor reviews it and concurs, blanking the page and putting a template such as Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD2/Example. It could then be PROD'ed, which would give the contributor five days to get it in suitable shape to survive. Alternately, we might move it to userspace or some other kind of article limbo where the collaborative process could continue, while keeping the temporarily unacceptable article out of mainspace. However, that might create issues when the user attempts to move it back to mainspace with a copy and paste move or something, that violates GFDL. We might have a technical fix that lets pages be moved on top of pages whose only item in the edit history is to place the intentional blank template (similarly to how we can move a page on top of a page whose only edit history item is a redirect). Any thoughts on this? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the purpose of blanking in this case, if the text can be easily restored by the author? In other words, why is this type of process better than PROD alone? Also, I believe that various proposal for page blanking have been rejected over the years, so... Black Falcon (Talk) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy blanking (combined with prod)

message: The begining of I7 is "Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the  template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified. "  If someone reads only the first sentence, they get the impression that, well, that what it says is true, and might go ahead and delete something after 48 hours. But the second sentence states that such images which are tagged "replacable fair use" require 7 days notice, not just 48 hours.
I suggest changing it to this:  "Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader, except that for media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the  template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified. "  I think this is clearer, and also has the advantage of being shorter.  (Here for once I'm talking about the wording of the CSD, not the wording in the templates.) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I suggest removing the curly brackets, i.e. changing it to "or tagged with the Replaceable fair use template".  The reason is that with the curly brackets there, it suggests that people could just cut and paste the curly brackets and template name.  But actually they shouldn't, because if you go to that template it says not to use it directly but to use "". --Coppertwig (talk)) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I7 self-contradictory 

message: Should "I6" be considered a "Criterion for speedy deletion" or an "Opportunity for speedy correction"? It seems that in many cases, a rationale is either plainly obvious or plainly unlikely. While the policy of requiring a rationale for Fair Use when new non-free content is uploaded is plainly important, I suggest that when the policy isn't followed, a review could be implemented alongside notification. To me, relying solely on "notification of the uploader" is a bit contrary to the normal progression of adding content (e. g. WP:BOLD; "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems."). Generally when problematic content is contributed in good faith it is more productive for other Wikipedians to just fix the problems rather than track down the source and nag them into doing it. The problem is made even worse when the nagging party is an automated script rather than a helpful Wikipedian who can offer assistance and resist "biting the newbies". I feel like this issue may lie at the heart of many complaints against the activities of BetacommandBot, and I wonder if the scope of the required intervention is small enough to be filtered by a review process now that the backlog of legacy images has been tagged. --Dystopos (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Images tagged for WP:CSD#I6 should, as they stand, not exist on Wikipedia, in the same way that an article tagged for WP:CSD#A7 should not in that state exist.  In the same way A7 articles can be salvaged by providing evidence of notability, I6 images can be saved by adding fair use rationales.  There are users who devote enormous energy to saving as many I6 images as they can, and their efforts are invaluable to the project.  But the problem is so massive, or certainly has been in the recent past, as to make any co-ordinated effort to manage I6 images impossible.  The reason this is a speedy criterion is because it has legal ramifications - tying up potentially copyright-infringing images in another layer of bureaucracy is not acceptable.  So while any effort to "salvage" images from I6 rather than deleting them is valuable, and any image saved in this manner is a benefit to the project, it is not possible to divert the entire stream of I6 images through this salvaging system, as the most important priority is to ensure that the images are removed from the I6 category swiftly, either through salvaging, or through deletion.  Allowing a long backlog of I6 images awaiting recovery to build up would be legally unacceptable. Happy‑melon 22:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion