Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template doc pages that have been converted

[edit]

There are two types of template /doc pages that have been sent to TfD and always deleted. Navigation templates that had their doc converted to {{Navbox documentation}} and WikiProject banners that had their doc converted to the automatic one with |DOC=auto. Can these be tagged with G6? Sending them to TfD really adds nothing to the process. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged such pages with WP:G6 before, giving a justification like "template uses {{navdoc}} instead", and it's always worked fine. As long as the /doc page is just boilerplate (as opposed to substantial/unique to its template), I think it's clearly uncontroversial maintenance. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also such an admin. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New T-criteria proposal

[edit]

Based on the above, and the fact that despite multiple admins indicating that G6 shouldn't be used for /doc deletion in the Template space, I would like to propose that we add a new T-criteria specifically to fix this issue. It would be something along the lines of TX: documentation subpages that are no longer transcluded by the parent template. I'm happy to discuss wording and scope (or clarifications as to what constitutes "no longer used"), but from a point of initial consideration:

  1. Objective: yes, as a /doc is either transcluded by its parent template (or for whatever reason, any template) or it is not
  2. Uncontestable: the only situation where I could see an unused /doc needing to be kept is for cases of attribution (if it were copied to another /doc for example) but in those cases it should just be redirected anyway. At TFD they are 100% deleted.
  3. Frequent: I decline at least one per week, and TFD is rife with them.
  4. Nonredundant: As indicated in the discussion in the main section, we are misusing G6 to allow for deletion, which seems to be the only other criteria that people seem to want to chuck these under.

Thanks for the consideration. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-RFC finalisation

[edit]

Before I put this forward as a formal RFC, are there any final thoughts about the wording of the new criteria based on the discussion above? Primefac (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is centralised documentation intended as the only reason for lack of use that allows for speedy deletion or is it intended that all unused documentation subpages are eligible? I can see the current wording being read both ways. If the intent is the latter then rewording to ...documentation subpages which are no longer used (e.g. due to centralized documentation) would solve the issue (as would just removing what I've put as a parenthetical). If the former is intended then someone better at wordsmithing than me will need to have at it.
As for {{T5-exempt}}, I'd say it would be beneficial as there are bound to be some pages that appear unused but actually aren't (something related to subst-only templates, or uncommon options in transitory templates) or which are needed for some other not-immediately-obvious purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most common reason I see for /doc pages nominated for G6 is when it is a "simple" /doc (maybe only containing {{collapsible option}} or similar) where the documentation gets moved to the main template and the /doc is no longer necessary. Other situations do include where multiple similar templates end up sharing a /doc, but usually what happens there is they are all redirected to that central /doc. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like HouseBlaster's statement, but I wonder if the confusion comes because it's three long examples given after the initial statement; would it be better to say just simply This applies to unused subpages of templates. Such pages include template documentation subpages... (i.e. split it into two sentences). That might reduce the confusion of it only being centralised /docs. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about using a bulleted list, like WP:G8?

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A+ Primefac (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should also probably include the current de-facto process of Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates here as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously love that I can still learn about new processes on Wikipedia. Probably not the best from a WP:CREEP perspective, but I still find it cool.

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

  • Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
  • /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
  • Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
  • Unnecessary subpages of {{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. We currently process a ton of subtemplates at TFD after the deletion of the primary template (this is backward to the proposal and discussion here, so it's not the exact same case) as G8. Is there merit to spinning that out of G8? Izno (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the rationale, but I do agree it's the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't be opposed but I don't necessarily see it as being necessary to combine them. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing much benefit in moving something which is a core part of G8 out of that criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late to this party, but I submit for consideration, somewhat warily, Editnotices that are no longer used, typically because they have been blanked after sanctions expired or someone thought better of having an edit notice at all. We can use the "blanked by author" criterion for some of them, but most are blanked by people who did not create the notices. See this TFD. I will understand if including them would stretch the definition of this criterion, since they are not subpages, but they are in template space and tied to specific pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would best to propose edit notices as a separate criterion, because as you say it's a stretch to include them with this one. My only query would be how frequent deletion of them is? Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, edit notices are all subpages of Template:Editnotices, so it is not that much of a stretch to include them. However, I think to simplify things, we should have a separate discussion after the T5 discussion where we can consider whether it is frequent enough to merit a CSD and, if so, whether it should be T6 or a bullet point in T5.
I will launch an RfC in 24 hours if there are no further comments/objections/feedback to the proposal above. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK with me to exclude it here. There are maybe about 100 to 200 blank editnotices right now, but I don't think anyone has been paying attention to them (many were blanked in 2021), so I'm guessing that deletion rates would be something in the low single digits per month. TFD is probably fine unless someone wants to go to the trouble of making a separate CSD criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to launch the RfC, but it turns out there is one additional thing we need to determine. WP:TCSD, while currently obsolete, used to apply to both templates and modules. I see no reason T5 should not apply to modules, given that modules are really templates which we have to put in a different namespace due to technical restrictions. I think adding subpages of Module:Sandbox to the list of things ineligible for T5 would solve any problems. Do others have thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the perspective of someone largely ignorant about modules your proposal makes sense, but defer to those who know what they are talking about if they disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me too as a module namespace regular. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages)

[edit]

Should T5 be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion for templates and modules? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

  • Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
  • /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
  • Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
  • Unnecessary subpages of {{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

G6 and G7 when others object

[edit]

Given all the words on this page about how speedy deletion needs to be uncontroversial, I shouldn't be necessary but given discussions like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#April 4, 1974 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Wikipedia:JDELANOY I'm increasingly thinking it would be beneficial to make it explicit that anyone, even creators, requesting or endorsing G6 or G7 speedy deletion do not override good-faith objections to deletion from other editors nor past deletion discussions with a consensus for something other than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, G5 should also probably be included for similar reasons, although the JDELANOY did anyway result in a consensus to delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 12#Wikipedia:JDELANOY. If there's already consensus for deletion at XfD it's not controversial. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how speedy deletion works. If there are good faith objections it's controversial unless and until someone competent closes a discussion with a consensus for deletion. Speedy deletion needs to be essentially unanimous, that consensus can emerge despite objections is irrelevant. This is also much broader than just one speedy deletion you happen to agree with. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you use the phrase essentially unanimous. A good faith objection can fit under that definition. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't though. Any good faith objection should, by every reasonable interpretation of everything in this policy, overrule an author request or similar. If you have two editors, one saying "delete" the other saying "don't delete" that needs to go to a consensus discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a better way of phrasing it would be that any good faith objection means that a page cannot be speedily deleted under G5, G6 or G7 except where there is an almost unanimous consensus at an XfD, as determined by an uninvolved admin (ideally the XfD should be closed as speedy delete by that admin before or immediately after they delete the page, but this doesn't need to be part of CSD policy). Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping X3 as a CSD criterion

[edit]

While criterion X1 was only a thing due to the massive amount of redirects involved, and X2 doesn't apply as the tool that created these articles was deprecated, the current "special" criterion X3 is different in the sense that even newly created redirects of this type will systematically end up deleted, making it still relevant to have (e.g. Gaurav Yadav(police officer) a few days ago).

For that reason, it would be more practical to keep it as a "regular" criterion (R5?). While the mass-scale cleanup is done, there is no reason to send future X3 redirects to RfD instead.

An alternative could be to merge it into R3, although it would limit it to recently created redirects, while X3 is broader in scope. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any redirect is either old enough to qualify for X3 as a "exceptional" one-time case, or will get caught by New Page Patrol and speedy deleted per R3. Anything that falls in the gap between them isn't common enough to warrant a new speedy deletion criterion and can get sent to RfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; X3 was meant for the really old stuff that R3 didn't cover, so it will eventually sunset. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. My recollection, and a very cursory skim now, of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 88#Improper disambiguation redirects, is that a permanent version would've been redundant to R3. There isn't even a need to change its wording. —Cryptic 19:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's already covered by R3, then it's fine as it is, although it could be good to make it explicit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did we actually finish what's expected to be relevant for X3 deletions? Was there a report generated that people went through to determine what's valid (such as chemical formulas) and what wasn't? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answered my own question, there's still plenty to deal with X3 wise based on a quarry search. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above that once the cleanup is complete, we should rely on the combination of WP:R3 (in most cases) / WP:G6 (for the page moves, as the old title was obviously created in error) / WP:RFD (for the remainder that fall through the cracks). It might be worthwhile to add a sentence to R3 to emphasize that such redirects do in fact meet the threshold for deletion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G4 applicability to redirects

[edit]

So, there was a bit of a hiccup in regards to the recreation of DQw4w9WgXcQ, the RfD that ensued, and the related user talk page discussion. I'm opening the floor to different interpretations, but I've become aware that I may have been splitting hairs in regards to the applicability of G4 depending on the state of the target article at the time of each redirect's creation. @Tamzin: I'm a bit unsure about the solution you were proposing in regards to redirects? Utopes (talk / cont) 06:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at in the RfD is that the status quo in redirect G4s may be more conservative than what's obvious from the wording of the criterion, and that perhaps a sentence should be added to make this explicit. In my experience, a G4 for a redirect is usually only honored if:
  • The new and old title are identical, or differ only in a very minor way (e.g. hyphen versus dash)
  • The new target is the same as the old target, or a renamed version of it
  • The circumstances that led to the deletion still apply. For instance, if the old redirect was deleted for lack of mention at target, there must still be no mention at target.
This seems like good practice and has been uncontroversial among RfD admins in my experience, so maybe we should make that official. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Is that much different than what is currently written at WP:G4? Maybe it's good to bullet those out, instead of keeping those characteristics in a block of text as it's currently written. Most of the other speedy deletion criterion break down the applications into bullet points, so I'd be in support of doing that with G4 as well, if that's what you're saying. I think all of those bullet points also apply to articles as well (but instead of "redirect pointing to the same place", it'd be "article consisting of the same content"). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point that this would emphasize is that G4 is particularly narrow when it comes to redirects. An article might get deleted because it has roughly the same facts and no new sources, which is a bit more flexibility than with redirects, where an admin's flexibility is constrained to these very limited considerations. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is a fair point. Expanding on this, I think when it pertains to creating ANY new article, it's important for people to ensure that there hasn't been a page previously deleted at the same title, and familiarize with past deletion discussions to see if those reasons will still apply. For articles, I'd say these can be described with a "similarity" scale, like an article could be 50% similar to a deleted version, or 75% similar, or 90%. If not notable during a previous AfD discussion, a new article would require substantial improvements meeting the reasons discussed there. Whereas on the flipside, redirects created after a past deletion will always be "the same" or "different" pertaining to its target, so 100% the same, or 0%, no scale. But both articles and redirects can be "saved" from G4 doom with the inclusion of new sources. (In an article's case, enough sources to constitute WP:GNG. In a redirect's case, enough to at least substantiate a mention). So to that point, I'd agree it may be worthwhile to better explain this interaction and "unspoken standard depending on whether a page is an article or redirect" in the G4 text. Bullet points seem like a good idea for that. Not sure exactly WHAT should be said, but this is a good start imo. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with the points Tamzin made about when we would accept G4. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of G4 is: Can we assume that any reasonable person who !voted to delete at the XfD would also !vote to delete the newly created version if it came up again at XfD? If yes, then G4 applies; if no or uncertain, then G4 does not apply. This basic principle is the same regardless of whether we're dealing with an article or a redirect. However, the reason why in practice G4 is more stringent for redirects is because small differences have a larger impact on the essence of redirects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G8 definition of dependent

[edit]

The current status of G8 is for pages that are "dependent" on another page. But what exactly makes a page dependent? I have been told by Nyttend that this only applies to redirects that target a redlink (paraphrased). But this goes against many current applications of G8, and also directly contradicts our definition at WP:G8. Targeting a redlink is not a reason for deletion, because plausible titles should be retargeted in an attempt to seek alternatives to deletion and is directly used as an example on when not to G8. Furthermore, redirects targeting blue links regularly get deleted due to G8 because of {{User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8}}, so that's not it either. Nyttend said something about G8 being usable on "nonsense targets", such as pointing an unrelated title to "nuclear physics", but I don't think this has anything to do with G8? Because the redirect can just be retargeted to a suitable location and G8/speedy deletion can be avoided entirely. But regardless, I think this text regarding something being "dependent" on another could be made a bit more clear because there seems to be a misunderstanding, and a revision may be helpful to clear things up. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G8 is a heavily overloaded criterion. We should consider splitting it up further. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only time G8 applies to redirects is when the target is a redlink and there is no suitable alternative. For example if Trinidad and Tobago at the 2038 Winter Olympics was deleted at AfD, redirects to it are eligible to be deleted under G8. Trinidad & Tobago at the 2038 Winter Olympics has not other plausible target so it can and should be deleted under G8. See also Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 74#Tightening G8 with respect to redirects. Outside of redirects it is perhaps most commonly used delete the talk page of pages that have been deleted.
I don't find the "dependent" language at all counter intuitive, and don't really think there is much benefit to splitting (although I'm not opposed), unlike G6 it isn't a collection of unrelated things. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: if İzmir–Aydın Railway were to disappear for whatever reason, let's say the original creator of Chidgk1 doesn't want it anymore, would İzmir-Aydın Railway (a "working" redirect) be eligible for G8? Utopes (talk / cont) 23:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the latter redirect would not be eligible for G8 because it's target exists. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if it is true (and if there is consensus) that "the only time G8 applies to redirects is when the target is a redlink and there is no suitable alternative", this should be stated in the text for G8. Currently it says "Examples include, but are not limited to...", implying that there is a possible gray area, so it would be nice to tidy that up if there is no gray area for redirects at least, and if the uses for redirects are truly black and white. (Or maybe "the uses are blue and red" makes sense as a pun 😉) Utopes (talk / cont) 23:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion currently explicitly says This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular: [...] Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets. If a redirect's current target exists and/or it has a plausible alternative target then it is not dependent on a non-existent page. I'm not sure what more needs to be said? Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My take on the G8 for AnomieBOT's redirects is that the bot-created redirect exists only as a navigational aid for the corresponding en-dash-containing title and wouldn't exist otherwise. Any reason (beyond maybe G5) for deleting the en-dash-containing title would almost certainly apply equally well to the bot redirect. And all that applies equally well whether the bot-created redirect points to the en-dash-containing title directly or whether we had to resolve a double redirect, because if it weren't for the need to bypass the double redirect then the bot-created redirect would point to the deleted en-dash-containing title. The mention of G7 (and, until just now, G6) in the bot's template is a sop to admins who have such an overly strict definition of G8 that they wouldn't apply it to this situation.
As for whether that applies to any other redirect, you'd have to look at the specific situation to determine whether "this would almost certainly have pointed at the deleted title if it weren't for bypassing a double redirect" and/or a WP:IAR "oops, this was accidentally left out of the RfD for the other title" might apply. Anomie⚔ 13:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to an existing page is not dependent on a deleted or non-existing page by any reasonable reading of the criterion, just just an "overly strict" one. If there is a desire to speedy delete these other than via G7 (for pages created by bot, the bot operator is regarded as the author) then we need to create a new speedy deletion criterion, but ideally they should be nominated at RfD alongside the other redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find my reasoning much more convincing than your attempt at proof by assertion. 🤷 Anomie⚔ 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the words of the criterion and applying their literal meaning as explicitly clarified in 2019 at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 74#Tightening G8 with respect to redirects. Anything else is creative reasoning that has no place in anything to do with speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're applying your own idiosyncratic definition of "dependent on" and asserting it's the only possible "literal meaning". I don't see anything at your lightly-attended RFC that's relevant here either. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see anything relevant to G8 and redirects in a discussion the explicitly defined what G8 means in relation to redirects, and think that a redirect can be dependent on deleted or non-existent page that exists and isn't deleted then assuming good faith gets rather difficult. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could say the same about you, continuing to baselessly assert your definition of "dependent on" is the only possible one, and somehow finding something relevant to what a redirect might be dependent on in an RFC about redirect loops and redirects to bad titles. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how a page can be "dependent on a deleted or non-existent page" when the page it is supposededly dependent on is neither deleted nor non-existent? As for the other discussion, it clarified that redirects to pages that don't exist are the only redirects that are subject to G8. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the page it's "dependent on" is deleted. You're insisting that the only page a redirect is "dependent on" is the current target, ignoring the possibility of bypassed double redirects resulting in a redirect pointing somewhere other than what it's dependent on. Perhaps you should re-read my original comment, where I already laid that out in more detail? As for your RFC, it did not at all establish that as the only possible condition where G8 would apply to a redirect. It removed some things from the one example directly addressing redirects, but Examples include, but are not limited to still applies. Anomie⚔ 13:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An avoided double redirect is not dependent on the page it is an avoided double redirect of, because it must still be a good redirect to the current target. If it isn't, or no longer is, then it needs to be discussed at RfD. Nyteend explained this, I've explained this, Utopes didn't read the full criterion and hasn't responded since that was pointed out. The "examples include" language is because G8 does not apply only to redirects - the linked discussion explicitly tightened G8 in relation to redirects to exactly one case: redirects targeting pages that don't exist. You don't like that, I understand that, but that doesn't mean that everybody other than you is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I could say the same about you: just because you don't like that a redirect may be dependent on something other than its target doesn't make it untrue. But it seems unlikely I'll change your mind, so there seems little point in continuing this. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what I like or don't like is irrelevant - a redirect can't be dependent on something other than its target. It may or may not be a good redirect, but that is a very different question. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the use of User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8 on pages like Gumelnița-Karanovo culture sounds like it's actually within the remit of G6, akin to Template:Db-xfd, rather than G8, since the issue is "deletion reason for A-B is also applicable to A–B" rather than "A–B is dependent on A-B". A minor wrinkle might be if there are pertinent differences between A–B and A-B that justify deleting the one but not the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G12 and wording from WP:CP

[edit]

Hi everyone, some of us over at copyright problems are overhauling the instructions there. Our goal is trying to move stuff that isn't directly related to the board elsewhere since it's currently functioning as the "how to handle all text CV on WIkipedia when WP:CV101 doesn't suffice" page on top of having rolling listings like AfD. Anyways, I noticed that our language is a lot less wordy than the current language, but doesn't contradict anything said here.. I propose that we merge over at least the bullet points in WP:Copyright problems#Blatant infringement to the G12 description, mimicking G13 and G14. If any wording changes are required to make it more clear or closely aligned to the current wording, I don't mind. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied over and edited the wording some; copyright cleanup instructions tended to be long winded back in 2010.
Pages with blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:
  • The content was copied from a non-compatible source that is not copied from Wikipedia.
  • The entire page history has copyright infringement and does not have any non-infringing content worth saving .
  • There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license.
Sennecaster (Chat) 08:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on expansion of speedy criteria

[edit]
Withdrawn by OP. Awesome Aasim 01:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am thinking of two new criteria for potential expansion of the speedy criteria. Specifically, under the following:

MediaWiki

MW1: Duplicate MediaWiki pages

  • This applies to MediaWiki pages which exactly duplicate the message provided in the software, for example by providing identical wording. This does not apply if the duplicate message has additional links, formatting, or logic that are specific to the English Wikipedia. Please check Special:AllMessages before nominating the page for deletion.

MW2: Unused MediaWiki pages

  • MediaWiki pages that are currently unused in the software. This includes edit filter messages not in use by an edit filter and title blacklist messages not being displayed for any blacklisted entry. Before nominating the page, please check Special:AllMessages and Special:AbuseFilter and in the technical village pump to see if the message is indeed in use.

MW3: Foreign language messages

  • This applies to internationalizations of English Wikipedia interface messages (for example, /es, /fr, /de language subpages). This does not apply to English variants. This also does not apply if there is an established consensus in the technical village pump for internationalizing a specific message for use on the English Wikipedia.

I feel inclined that MW2 in this case would be a special case of WP:G6, probably MW1 and MW2. If needbe, these can be "exceptional criteria" as well.

A few years ago I discovered dozens of foreign language interface messages that IMHO provide very little value for English Wikipedia contributors, including MediaWiki:Noarticletext/es. Convenience is different from helpfulness, and we should not be encouraging users who do not have a strong command of English to be attempting to edit English Wikipedia. They can provide suggestions for edits if they think something is wrong, but should not be directly editing the project.

This is just an idea at this stage, and I want to get feedback for how to word this before proposing. Awesome Aasim 03:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/Archive 87#Adding a new criteria for unused MediaWiki messages /Archive 78#Add criteria for MediaWiki namespaces Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed/de. Don't think anything has changed since to make speedy deletion any more appropriate, although your persistence is admirable. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I forgot because it was over eight months ago. I do appreciate reposting though. Would any of these fall under G6 in your opinion? Awesome Aasim 03:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign language messages definitely wouldn't - given the comments in the linked discussion there doesn't seem to be consensus these should be deleted, so they aren't uncontroversial. Again based on comments in other discussions, G6 will probably not apply to pages with meaningful history. Thryduulf (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MfD discussions of MediaWiki namespace pages 2004-2024
Year Discussions
2024 5
2023 5
2022 2
2021 4
2020 4
2019 6
2018 3
2017 4
2016 2
2015 6
2013 1
2012 1
2011 4
2010 2
2009 0
2008 1
2007 4
2006 4
2005 1
2004 1
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove "or in the incorrect namespace" from the G6 bullet point

[edit]

"Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace, or redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended" should be simplified to "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error, or redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended." If a page is created in the incorrect namespace it should be moved to the correct namespace, and then the redirect is covered by the second clause. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with that, I suppose. Technically a redirect from say Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Example that should actually be at Wikipedia:Example would be eligible for R3 deletion, as would the redirect left behind if say someone moved Draft:Example to Wikipedia:Example by accident before it was moved to the proper location of Example (with the Draft redirect retargeted first). Primefac (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're only eligible for R3 if discovered shortly after creation, which is not always the case (sometimes such redirects linger for years), so the redirect language here is not redundant to R3. I'm currently neutral on the proposed change. I can't immediately think of any problems the it would cause, but I'm not yet certain I have thought of everything so I'm not going to support (yet). Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've always understood the intent here was for post-move redirects, like in the second half. (But I'm too distracted right now to go looking through the history, so maybe it's always been way worse than I thought.) Maybe we can retain and clarify this with "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error, or redirects created by moving away from a title or namespace that was obviously unintended."? Yes, it's a little redundant - the namespace is part of the title - but it would be a stronger discouragement to just speedying e.g. drafts in Wikipedia: space instead of moving them. —Cryptic 19:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=1259460063"