Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}__NOINDEX__
{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 73
|counter = 87
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive index
|target=Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive index
|mask=Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive <#>
|mask=Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive <#>
Line 12: Line 15:
|indexhere=yes
|indexhere=yes
}}
}}
{{talk header|WT:CSD|search=yes}}
{{talk header|WT:CSD|search=yes|archive_age=30|archive_units=days|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header}}
{{Copied
{{Copied
|from = Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria
|from = Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria
|from_oldid = 584487717
|from_oldid = 584487717
|to = Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
|to = Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
|to_diff = 584576665it
|to_diff = 584576665
|to_oldid = 584575352
|to_oldid = 584575352
|date = 20:38, 4 December 2013
|date = 20:38, 4 December 2013
|small =
|small =
}}{{Copied
| from = Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
| from_oldid = 749905429
| to = Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy
| to_diff = 749906249
| date = 16 November 2016
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|units=days|small=yes}}
{{Cent}}
__NOINDEX__


== Improper disambiguation redirects ==
<!--Begin discussion-->
=== First RfC ===
{{closed rfc top
| status =
| result = '''Procedural close'''. Per [[WP:PGCHANGE]], this discussion was required to be widely advertised; it was not. Editors are encouraged to participate on the follow-up RfC below. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
}}


== Should a 4th CSD for unused templates be added? ==


For a while now [[WP:RFD]] has been flooded with nominations for redirects that a missing a space between the term and the opening parenthesis of a disambiguator (e.g. [[Constantine(video game)]] and [[Scaramouche(1952 film)]]), see for example sections 17 to 35 at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31]], sections 17 to 57 at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1]], and similar in the days leading up to them. These discussions invariably end up being deleted uncontroversially, and the number of discussions is causing issues for RfD (see e.g. [[Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Can we reduce the number of RfDs transcluded on this page?]]). Accordingly I propose a new speedy deletion criterion R5:<br>
Should a new CSD criteria (<s>T4</s><u>T5</u>) be added for unused templates that meet the following criteria:
'''Redirects with no space before a parenthetical term''', e.g. "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, e.g. [[501(c)(3)]]
* '''Template is not used anywhere''', I.E. has zero transclusions excluding templates own documentation of course.
*''Before'' nominating a redirect under this criterion:
* '''Template is NOT a substitute only template.''' Should go without saying but templates that are substitute only by definition should never have transclusions, doesn't mean the template can been speedily deleted.
**Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
* '''Template is older than 6 months.''' No speedily deleting a new template that hasn't been used just yet.
**Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version.
* '''Template is NOT a sometimes unused/temporary template.''' An example of this would be {{tl|help me}} which may have 0 transclusions at any given moment.
*This criterion does not apply if the redirect is the result of page move made less than 30 days ago, but criteria [[WP:CSD#R3|R3]] and/or [[WP:CSD#G6|G6]] may apply.
Please discuss. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The rationale for the last bullet is to allow time for mirrors, etc. to catch up. If the page was moved and then immediately moved again, or created at this title then quickly moved then this title was obviously created in error and G6 applies. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Practice shows that such templates are routinely deleted at TfD without much discussion, CSDing them would save effort. [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 18:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*For the same reason it was unanimously rejected ''[[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposal to add T4: Unused|barely a month ago]]''. Please read the "Please read this before proposing new criteria" box at the top of this page and do the due diligence of at least a minimal search before squandering the community's time with a formal rfc. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 19:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
**{{ping|Cryptic}} that was not a formal RFC, this is. Additionally, I added some clarifying criteria in this proposal, such as the note about substitute only templates being exempt. Would be nice to have the proposal discussed on its merits rather than based on a cursory previous discussion. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 19:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The reason this gets suggested repeatedly is because it's a good idea. So much time is wasted taking unused templates to TfD when there is virtually no opposition to their deletion. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - just look at the logs for the past few months, most (or even all?) of the unused templates were deleted without any objection. Regular nomination just clogs the list with pointless discussions full of "per nom" as there is virtually nothing to say. As these templates weren't in use, there is nothing to lose by deleting them. If someone later on wants the template back, they can ask an admin to [[WP:UNDELETE]] it and move it to their sandbox. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' – templates aren't articles, so the CSD criteria for removing unused ones should be low. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 21:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – it's too difficult, because too bureaucratic, to have unused templates deleted, so many editors, including me, have given up. [[:Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates]], for example, is full of unused templates, almost all blanked. The suggested criterion would help to get them deleted instead of leaving them just sitting there. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 21:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' much like we delete unused pages with just the article wizard text. Clear the clutter and focus management on the useful. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 22:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' should this CSD apply to unused Lua modules too? [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 22:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' <del>It cannot be T4, because [[WP:CSD#T4|T4 has been used before]] and we do not re-use old codes.</del> <ins>unless it can be demonstrated that each template to be deleted under the proposed criterion has never been used, either directly or as a substitution.</ins> --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
**{{ping|Redrose64}} so you are opposing the entire proposal because it cannot be T4? That is a pretty simple correction... If it was T5 would you then support it? --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 01:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Assuming this accounts for transclusions that have been removed as part of vandalism before the template is deleted, is not just used to bypass [[WP:TfD|TfD]] in some way, and say around 7 days has passed after being nominated before deletion. [[User:Breawycker|Breawycker]] ([[User talk:Breawycker|talk to me!]]) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
**{{ping|Breawycker}} great point. You can't just remove the transclusions and then CSD the template to game the system. If a template has a number of transclusions and you think it should be removed, that is a case for XfD. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 01:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Such activity is a possible behavioural issue rather than a reason to not have a CSD for non-controversal cases. Anyway if someone changes a handful of templates A to template B and the gets rid of template B where is the problem? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The fact that a template is unused is never by itself a reason to delete it, it's only relevant as a criterion by which to select a potentially unneeded template for further inspection at TfD (see also [[User:Uanfala/Arguments to watch out for in TfD discussions|this brief essay]]). An evaluation of use, or the potential for use, of a template requires knowledge of its context, the function that it serves and the existence of related or similar templates. All this calls for judgement that is above and beyond what goes into dealing with the obvious, clear-cut scenarios that the CSD criteria are there for. A template can be "unused" for a wide variety of reasons. Maybe it's a useful template that nobody happens to know about, in which case it needs not to be deleted, but popularised and integrated into the project documentation. Maybe it's a template that is meant to be used only temporarily, for example until certain issues on a given page have been addressed (niche maintenance templates). It may be a currently unused element of a wider system that somebody might soon need (happens sometimes within the lang-xx family of templates). It may be unused because it was removed in error from the one page where it's meant to be used and nobody has noticed yet. It may be unused because the editor who tagged it for deletion has just removed all of its transclusions. It may be unused at the moment, but its existence may be assumed or required by some other piece of machinery (like a module) in a way that doesn't show up in its list of transclusions. A template may be unused, but it could hold the history of a fragment of article text that has at some point been merged into the article, and hence the template is there to preserve attribution. A template may appear as unused because it's meant to be substed; yes, such a template should be exempt from the proposed CSD, but how do you determine if a template's meant to be substed? (It doesn't always say so in the documentation; I remember there have been TfD discussions where several editors had voted to delete such an "unused" template until someone noticed it was a user warning template and so is always substed.) <br/> I don't think any one editor is attuned to all these possibilities, and that's why such things are better decided by discussion involving several participants. However, TfD does indeed occasionally feel like it's getting flooded with similar nominations, so something probably ought to be done about that. If new speedy deletion criteria are going to be part of the solution, then they should be about easy, clearly-defined subsets of templates; there could, for example, be a CSD criterion for unused navboxes that fail [[WP:NAVBOX]]. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 03:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This helps make editing an easier experience by simplifying the set of available templates. The amount of verbiage and time wasted on discussing (but rarely if ever actually using) ''potential'' uses of these templates is vast. A template exists to serve the encyclopedia in some way (helping editing or reading) and if it's not used, in the caveats above, it should be deleted.--[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 07:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', unused templates can hold interesting history that needs preserving. Also, deleting templates that have been widely used destroys old revisions of articles. And per Uanfala. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 07:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*: "this destroys old revisions" is not an argument that TfD seems to be accepting: [[Template:Persondata]] was deleted. [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*::Yeah, that argument is a flawed argument from its root, as the whole deletion process of TfD destroys old revisions all the time. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 20:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::It is sometimes relevant. For Persondata, old revisions just have a redlinked template at the bottom. That is not a problem. Deleting templates used within the text (convert-like ones) is a much more serious problem. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Uanfala and Kusma. I'm generally not opposed to cleanup but the above-mentioned risks are clearly higher than the potential benefits. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 08:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I've supported and even proposed the ability to PROD unused templates, since it takes a step out of the deletion process but allows users seven days to oppose and potentially discuss its deletion and use. Speedy deletion offers none of that. [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 09:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Some unused templates, such as {{tl|Roads legend}} and {{tl|Trillium Line route diagram detailed}}, are nevertheless permanently stored in template space, and they may be linked to Wikidata items which are structurally useful. I would support if there were a provision for certain templates – such as templates explicitly marked as historical, templates with incoming links from articles, template sandboxes, templates for which T5 has previously been declined, and templates which have been otherwise marked as ineligible for T5 – to be ineligible for T5 deletion. [[User:Jc86035|Jc86035]] ([[User talk:Jc86035|talk]]) 10:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. While I think the basic idea is good, there are too many nuances and exceptions to the point where I believe a CSD to be untenable. I think the proper solution is to expand PROD to templates so the distinction becomes potentially controversial vs. uncontroversial, and I would support such a proposal. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*:I was thinking I'd like to see template prod as well, but [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_67#New_criterion_-_T4,_aka_Template_PROD|that's a discussion for a different page]]. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 15:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*::No, that was not a template PROD but another CSD proposal disguised as a "PROD". A template PROD would be simply expanding [[WP:PROD]] to include (unused) templates. If you read that discussion, I had opposed that proposal for that very reason. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 16:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::Either way, this isn't the page for it, was the point I was making. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the above opposers and the many previous discussions where a CSD criterion for unused templates has been rejected. Not all templates need to be used at all times (e.g. {{temp|help me}} may be unused at any given moment), not all subst-only templates are marked as such, some templates should be kept so as not to break old revisions, etc, etc. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*: C1 exists despite the fact that [[:Category:Wikipedians looking for help]] may be empty at any given moment. Why can't T5 be implemented in the same way? [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 18:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per those above who have already highlighted many situations in which a template with zero transclusions should be kept anyway, i.e. there are good reasons why zero transclusion templates should not be deleted without prior discussion. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' {{ping|Thryduulf}} and a few others have made a very valid point that there are some templates that at any given moment may have no transclusions ({{tl|help me}} for example). {{u|Pppery}} raised a good counter argument about C1 accounting for sometimes empty categories. This is why we have {{tl|Empty category}}. With that in mind, I 100% agree that something would be needed to document that some templates may have zero transclusions at any given moment. I'm curious those who have objected based on this point alone, if we were able to account for this case would you be more supportive of this? I have added a new criteria to the top of this RFC to account for that case. It would seem to me that it would be pretty easy to add some documentation to the new CSD criteria that exempts templates that may at any given moment have no transclusions.
:Additionally, I'm curious if there are additional conditions that would cause some of you to be more supportive of the idea? For example, if we said that the template must be at least 1 year old instead of just 6 months? {{u|Thryduulf}} thank you for raising that point, it wasn't something I had considered and definitely needs to be accounted for. A reminder, the goal of this CSD criteria is to expedite the process of deleting old unused templates that have been sitting around for a long time and are unused. It is not my intention to facilitate a method for gaming the system and quickly nuking templates someone just doesn't like. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Redrose64|SoWhy|Jc86035|Thryduulf|Ivanvector}} please see above comment. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::My opposition to this criteria is based on far more than just on that one point, and still stands. For example the older a template is the higher the chance of breaking old revisions. If a template has been around for a year without causing problems then I'm not seeing any reason why deletion of it ''needs'' expediting. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::Regarding your question about an {{tl|Empty category}} equivalent for templates, {{tl|Subst only}} will account for most of the templates that have no transclusions, with the caveat that some templates use {{tl|Substitution}}, which allows a custom message, and thus requires examination to determine whether the jist is that it's a template that must be substituted. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 20:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::Still a no for me, the temporarily-unused template (like {{tl|help me}}) is just one of the issues raised. I'm actually more concerned about borked page histories that rely on templates that are later deprecated. I'm not against deleting unused templates, I'm only opposed to doing it without having a discussion to consider all the angles first. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Again? We just discussed this in December. See [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposal to add T4: Unused]]. I'll just quote my comment from then:
<blockquote>Alas, this has been proposed, many, many, many, many times. The iterations sometimes vary, such as just for user namespace templates, or just for those "not encyclopedic", with varying waiting periods or age requirements. Just some of these discussions are: [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposed tweak to T3|/Archive 72#Proposed tweak to T3]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 10#Orphaned templates|/Archive 10#Orphaned templates]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 67#New criterion - T4, aka Template PROD|/Archive 67#New criterion - T4, aka Template PROD]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#New CSD - T4 Unused userbox that is more than 30 days old|/Archive 44#New CSD - T4 Unused userbox that is more than 30 days old]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 42#T4: Unused template|/Archive 42#T4: Unused template]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive_52#Deprecated_templates|/Archive_52#Deprecated_templates]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 22#Speedy deletion of unused templates?|/Archive 22#Speedy deletion of unused templates?]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 59#Gauging opinion on a possible new criterion for templates|/Archive 59#Gauging opinion on a possible new criterion for templates]]. There have also been several proposals at [[WT:PROD]] for this (reportedly four in 2007 alone). There seem to be three reasons this has never been adopted. Firstly, as pointed out by [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]], templates that are intended to be substituted have no transclusions by design, and a summary process like CSD is not efficient to distinguish those not transcluded by design from those by circumstance. Secondly, CSD is generally for urgent deletions and, although TfD is busy, it is not backlogged enough (with deserved thanks to [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] (above), [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] and others) to warrant the use of a summary process like this, particularly since an unused template is not an urgent cause for deletion. Thirdly, that a template is unused is not, in any guideline, a dispositive reason to delete it; rather, it is just a relevant consideration; therefore, it would be egregious to make it a dispositive reason to speedily delete it before there is consensus on whether this should be decisive for a deletion discussion.</blockquote>
:--[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


*I'd '''support''' this. As you said, it's been an ongoing issue and the discussions end the same way every time. It's adding unnecessary bureaucracy when the outcome is clear from the beginning. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 13:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:I want to echo what {{u|Tavix}} said, because he hit it on the head. CSD should be quick and straightforward — the least amount of judgment or gray area required, the better. This proposal would require users to:
*'''Support''' – these are among the most straightforward closes I regularly encounter at RfD, and they aren't adequately covered by R3 and G6. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 13:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:#Ensure the template isn't substituted
*'''Support'''. I would also support coverage of other obvious typographical errors, such as disambiguators missing a closing paren. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:#Ensure it's older than 180 days
*:The most recent large discussion I found about missing closing parentheses was very controversial as they were working around an external link problem. I can't remember what the outcome was in the end but it was relisted a couple of times, so not at all suitable for speedy deletion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:#Check that it has no transclusions
*::I've started trying to track past nominations such as these and I have 3 bulk nomination links saved in my notes for these types of redirects. They're for [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_22#Misplaced_or_missing_brackets|February, 2019]], [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_20#More_missing_brackets|April, 2019]], and [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")"|October, 2022]], the most recent of which was contentious. I'm sure you already know Thryduulf, but I thought I'd share the links for reference. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:#Check if any redirects have transclusions or history that might have been merged there
* '''Support''' [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:#Somehow know whether this template may have been used occasionally but not right now even though it's not substituted(???)
*'''Support''' but I would title it "Redirects with no space before a parenthetical [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|disambiguator]]" to define the scope. If not then things like [[501(c)(3)]] absolutely will be carelessly tagged and deleted. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:#Know whether any of its redirects may have also been used occasionally but not right now
*:Good suggestion. I think that's a good differentiation to make. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:That's nowhere near tenable for a SD criterion. A TPROD process might work, but this is too complicated for speedy deletion. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*Why aren't these R3's? Is it just that we're only now working through a backlog of very old ones that nobody noticed before? What happens when those are gone? And would a database report to detect new ones help? —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 17:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:As usual, I'm with Amory. Too many criteria for a CSD, any questionable template should be sent to Tfd. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment/Question''': How many templates fit the proposed criteria today? Are we talking about 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, or more? An order of magnitude (backed up by a reasonable method of arriving at that number) would be helpful in this discussion. [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
*:Some of the ones that have been nominated recently have been around for over a decade. I guess a database report wouldn't harm. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
*::Very preliminary version at [[quarry:query/80153]]. Very many false positives still, chemical names in particular, and it's not immediately obvious how to filter them out without introducing false negatives. I'd hope that most wouldn't be interpreted as a disambiguator, but I'm sure someone would eventually carelessly speedy ones like {{!r|Chromium(III)}}, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find ones of the much-more-common sort like {{!r|Dysprosium(III) nitride}} tagged db-r5 either.{{pb}}What I'm not seeing are recently-created ones. The current most recent is [[Deportivo Toluca F.C.(women)]] from January 13, and the next most recent is [[Fletcher Ladd(justice)]] from December 14. Unless RFD has been very diligent about deleting recently-created ones in particular recently - has it? - this suggests to me a backlog we can hope to eventually clear rather than an ongoing and permanent problem. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
**As a first approximation, there's 90684 non-redirect pages in the template namespace that currently aren't transcluded from any other page that were created before 2018-06-27 ([[quarry:query/33701]]). So something less than that - the count includes subst-only templates, and template sandboxes, and template documentation pages, and so on. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::I [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/80155 tweaked your query] to just filter out the articles, which got the total down to 12.2k. If it helps, {{noping|Dcirovic}} seems to have created 900+ of the redirects that appear in the query. I expect that they're legit ones which could be removed. I also noticed that your list is including redirects that contain "-(", which could be something to look at to trim it a bit. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
**Excluding pages with names ending in "/sandbox", "/testcases", or "/doc" brings the total down to [[quarry:query/33707|83752]]. Further excluding templates that themselves transclude {{tl|require subst}} and/or {{tl|subst only}} brings it down to [[quarry:query/33742|82204]]. Even supposing that many subst-only templates aren't documented as subst-only, there's only 518284 total non-redirect pages in the Template namespace. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
*::::Filtering out non-redirects is good if you're looking for more to bring to RFD, or potentially speedy. It's not so good in the context of this discussion (since it also filters out redirects currently at RFD, since they're not technically redirects while tagged) or in an ongoing database report (we'd want to see pages created at or moved to titles like these as soon as they happen, not just after someone else happens to notice them, moves them back, and doesn't deal with the redirect).{{pb}}You can reasonably go further than just eliminating -( by looking specifically for a letter- or digit-like character before the paren, as in [[quarry:query/80157]]. Again, if I were watching a date-ordered report, I'd rather see them show up than risk missing a false negative - it misses [[Deportivo Toluca F.C.(women)]] from above, for example. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
***Interesting. I wonder why [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates]] shows only about 13,446 templates before it starts to list redirects (and why would it list redirects, which are cheap?). It seems that a better set of queries is needed, perhaps one or two that implement some of the criteria listed at the top of this section. That might allow people who want to take templates to TFD (or label them as subst-only) to have an easier time of it, allowing all of us (or most of us, at least) to achieve our goals. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
* I find the deletion of templates very annoying when reviewing old page revisions where they were used. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 22:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::::Even just removing '-(' is going to filter out redirects we should deal with, like {{!r|Hurdling-(horse race)}}. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 21:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't know the flavor of SQL being used here and I don't have Quarry access but could it stand to have something along the lines of <code>AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 'X' FROM page otherpage WHERE otherpage.page_title = REPLACE(page.page_title, '(', ' (')</code>? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Largoplazo|contribs]]) 20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
**I'm pretty sure the criteria under discussion would prevent that from happening. CSD would apply only to templates that are unused. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::::WMF-run wikis are backed by [[MariaDB]], a MySQL fork. You (and anyone else with a registered account) do have Quarry access, if you care; click "Login" from the upper right and it'll bounce you through meta. And, again, that sort of refinement is going to result in many false negatives - this time, it'll find pages that haven't been partially dealt with (by someone creating the properly-disambiguated title), but miss cases where someone saw a page at [[Acme(widget manufacturer)]] and moved it to [[Acme (widget manufacturer)]] without dealing with the leftover redirect. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
***Nope. This is for templates that are currently unused, not for ones that were never used. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::That right there is one of the largest groups of false positives I've found: Valid chemistry-related titles with parentheses without spacing before/after parentheses. Thus .. my reservations about making this a CSD. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 19:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'll give a current real example to illustrate why I disagree with this proposal. At [[Template talk:URL #Infobox input may vary, same output preferred]], there was a request for code that "{{tq|accepts all input forms, then reformats it as needed into good {{tl|URL}}}}". Eventually we've arrived at updated functionality in [[Module:URL]] and a new template called [[Template:URL2]] that's much more user-friendly in infoboxes than [[Template:URL]]. Take a look at the comparison between the outputs and judge for yourselves whether {{tl|URL2}} has potential, especially as it doesn't throw an error in an infobox that uses Wikidata (which may provide blank input to the template). But {{tl|URL2}} is [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:URL2|not used in article space]] at present, so unless somebody uses it in the next x days, it would be deleted under this criterion. What value does that add to the encyclopedia? What happened to [[WP:TIND]]? Why would I spend time creating potentially useful code if I knew there was a deadline imposed for somebody to use it? If potentially useful code keeps being deleted, what will you do when editors asks for new functionality but all the coders are too fed up with having their work deleted to bother with it? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 23:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
*::::<small>(For what it's worth, here's the regex query I've developed over time that reduces the amount of chemistry-related false positives: <code>[^ 0-9:\-\)]\([^0-9\-\)][^\)]</code>. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%2F%5B%5E+0-9%3A%5C-%5C%29%5D%5C%28%5B%5E0-9%5C-%5C%29%5D%5B%5E%5C%29%5D%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Search using this regex] [takes a bit to load]) However, it also doesn't allow any numbers directly after a "<code>(</code>" which will make "bad" disambiguators that start with years not appear in the list either.) [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
* <p>'''Oppose''' - no matter how many ways these proposals are dressed, I will {{em|stubbornly oppose}}; unused will never be a synonym for unusable (a criterion I would support) and it will never mean its condition is final, and so absolute that every potential for use in the future is also precluded (only its deletion can accomplish that). And, so too is it fact that a template's deletion, after discussion at TfD, does not remotely suggest that discussion itself is not beneficial, or even necessary.</p><p>In closing, I'd like to say: I find the proximal nearness of this discussion to its most recent counterpart more than a little disturbing. I hope when it closes, its proponents will accept the consensus achieved (or lack thereof) respect the mandate in its remit, and stifle the inclination to be heard again. These matters are settled, their questions have been thoroughly answered, and enough has been vested already. Moving on is the only course to follow from here, please follow that course!--[[User:John Cline|John Cline]] ([[User talk:John Cline#Top|talk]]) 04:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)</p>
*:::::<small>(Well, I just tried my own regex a few times, and even that list on 20 titles has like 2–3 false positives. Over the years, trying to write the perfect regex to reduce false positives has been rather difficult.) [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 20:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Oppose'''. Mere disuse is a bad reason to delete a template, if for no other reason than per SmokeyJoe and Cryptic. If they're not problematic, keep them, since otherwise you're damaging old revisions for no good reason. Also, per Cryptic's stats, this would involve a very large number of pages, even after you skip the ones that are always supposed to be substituted, the new creations, and the temporary ones. We shouldn't declare such a large number of pages currently speedy-deletable, except after a big community discussion on whether such deletions are appropriate. Look at the way G13 was originally handled; it was much bigger than merely a conversation here. Unless they come out of a big discussion, the only way we should create new speedy criteria is if they cover a class of pages that is rare at the moment because the pages are constantly getting deleted at XFD already. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Steel1943|Steel1943]] What we could do is tag chemistry redirects with a proper redirect category and then exclude the redirect template or category from the query. This way future editors will also know that these aren't fit for speedy deletions. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' (additional to oppose above). Zackmann08 has recently TFD'd hundreds of unused templates. The results seem to indicate to me that, while many are deleted unopposed, clearly not all are deleted, and the deletions are clearly not uncontroversial. So CSD for them is clearly wrong. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' it seems to pass most of the NEWCSD requirements, objective, as noted all discussions seem to today result in deletion with most people agreeing, uncontestable, there is a clear consensus today to delete these, frequent, although it may become less frequent if newer ones are caught and deleted under R3 other namespaces and if future ones get missed (and some in other namespaces not yet checked as all from what I can remember have been namespace redirects but there will probably be such redirects in other namespaces) will be needed, nonredundant, as noted while many newer ones can be deleted under R3 older ones can't and although it could already be argued these can be deleted under G6 it would probably be more sensible for the same reason G14 was split to have a separate criteria. In terms of consensus etc in previous years such redirects were kept often per [[WP:CHEAP]], see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 26#Burn (Scotland]] but in more recent years such as [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")"]] the consensus has changed namely that such redirects are [[WP:COSTLY]]. I would put one condition here, that the redirect doesn't have any article content history currently at the title (as opposed to from a move) [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 30#Montblanc(ffta)]] for example was an article so as a sub topic the history should probably be moved to [[Montblanc (ffta)]] (and the resulting redirect could then be deleted under R5) and [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#Musa(name)]] which has significant history. When it comes to such redirects they should in some cases be moved to the correct title, in some cases should be restored and sent to AFD and in some cases are simply duplicates which means that if they only contain nonsense etc or don't contain any significant content not in the target they don't need to be kept and could have been deleted as A10 if they hadn't been redirected.
*'''Oppose''' for similar reasons as in this recent MfD of unused templates: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused userbox template]]. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 22:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*I also think we should cover "(Disambiguation)" redirects like [[London (Disambiguation)]] per [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages]]. I would also support incorrectly capitalized qualifiers like [[Morbius (Film)]], see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Morbius (Film)]] but the consensus seems to be weaker. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': There are enough corner cases that this could be dangerous. What about templates that are uses as preloads only (which aren't subst only, yet have zero transclusions)? What about templates that aren't technically subst only, but which don't have any hidden comment for tracking and have so far only been substed? How would criteria 4 be objectively judged, as any template could be defined as "sometimes unused"? As we've seen at TfD recently, figuring out whether or not a template is actually used is often not srtaightforward enough to be considered as a CSD. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</span>]]) 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*:Excluding redirects that have history as an article would seem best as there aren't so many of them that RfD would be overwhelmed and the best course of action is not always the same. As for "improperly" capitalised disambiguators, the consensus that these are bad is weak and (from my biased perspective) getting weaker so they definitely shouldn't be speedily deleted. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': The old discussion already showed problems, it shouldn't have been simply reproposed after that short a time without addressing the issues raised before. [[User:ChristianKl|<span style='color: #0000EE;'>'''ChristianKl'''</span>]] ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫ 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' especially per Kusma and others. Deleting templates makes older revisions extremely difficult to read. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 15:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*::I'm surprised those capitalizations were deleted. I don't personally support that as alternative capitalizations are typically valid redirects. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 22:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't think capitalization redirects with incorrect qualifiers are useful as users are very unlikely to use incorrect Wikipedia qualifiers, see [[WP:UNNATURAL]] and for internal searchers they would get to the correct place anyway. These redirects do inconvenience editors though.
*'''Comment'' note that [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused userbox template]] (and MfD for 250 unusued userbox templates) was closed as "keep", [[Template:Pollachi–Dindigul branch line]], [[Template:Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough]] and [[Template:Railway stations in Nottinghamshire]] were both brought to TfD as unused but rather than being deleted the templates were used. [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 2#Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed]] is still open but is likely heading for a keep or no consensus close after being relisted - debate is about whether a template that is linked from article space is "unused". These show that "unused templates" fail the "uncontestable" and "objective" requirements for new criteria. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*:::{{Ping|Thryduulf}} Would something like {{tq|This criteria does not apply to any redirect that has non-redirect content (such as being a separate article or template etc) at the ''current'' title's history unless the page would qualify for speedy deletion (such as A10 or G1) if restored. If the page was redirected more than a month ago then the page can be moved to the correct title without redirect or the resulting redirect deleted immediately under this criteria.}} This would clarify that redirects like [[Montblanc(ffta)]] could not be deleted by this criteria but because it was redirected ages ago it could be moved to [[Montblanc (ffta)]] without redirect or the redirect speedily deleted. While I don't really agree with you that article content can't be deleted at RFD I don't think article content should be speedily deleted under R5. And cases like say [[Musa(name)]] that have history that can't easily be moved would still go to RFD but as you say there aren't many of these case so shouldn't be a problem. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Uanfala covered what I was going to. I also agree this is basically forum-shopping since we just went over this in December. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*::::I think I agree with the concept in your second paragraph, but the wording isn't the clearest (I had to read it multiple times to be clear about what you mean). I've not got time right now to improve it though. Your first paragraph is almost completely backwards - they do help and don't hinder - (UNNATURAL is a mix of correct, debatable and incorrect) but as this is something good faith editors disagree about it fails the uncontroversial requirement for speedy deletion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Please do not archive this''' until it has been formally closed (I've requested this at [[WP:ANRFC]]) so that there is a clear record of consensus about this going forward. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
*I am wondering if this would make more sense as X3. Recently created redirects which match the description of the proposed R5 fall under R3; once the "backlog" has been cleared this would seem redundant (NEWCSD#4). I think RfD can handle the occasional [[term(dab)]] that makes it past NPR without getting nominated for R3. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 08:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
*:I '''<ins>strongly</ins> support X3''' and <s>oppose</s> '''<ins>weakly support</ins> R5'''. Once the backlog is cleared, it will be redundant (i.e. fail [[WP:NEWCSD]]4) to R3; RfD will be able to handle the occasional redirect that makes it through the R3 window. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) EDITED 00:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my [[User talk:Thryduulf#RDAB|previous discussion with Thryduulf]]. As I noted there, RfD has continued to be inundated with RDAB redirects, so I do think a CSD criterion is warranted. I would also support expanding the scope to cover the other types of errors mentioned at RDAB (I can live with capitalization differences being exempted, if others agree with Thryduulf that they are not uncontroversial), including ''(disambiguation'', ''((disambiguation)'', ''(disambiguation) (disambiguation)'', etc. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
*:Missing closing parentheses were controversial last time they were discussed en mass so are not suitable for speedy deletion. I don't recall seeing any of the others at RfD recently. [[Ø (Disambiguation) (disambiguation)]] is the only page I can find "(disambiguation) (disambiguation)", and that's a {{temp|R from merge}} so likely needs to be kept. As of the 21 November dump of page titles (the most recent I have downloaded) there were no instances of "((disambiguation" or "disambiguation))". [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*::[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Andrew Sinclair (privy councellor and etc.]], [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Bonaparte's Retreat (Disambiguation)]], [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Islamic Resistance in Iraq (Disambiguation )]], [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Terminal value (philosophy/]], [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Chen Mingyi (Taiwan)]], etc. You can easily find more cases of RDAB via regex search, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%2FRedirects+for+discussion%5C%2FLog%2F+%22RDAB%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%2FRedirects+for+discussion%5C%2FLog%2F+insource%3A%2F%5C%28Disambiguation%5C%29%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%2FRedirects+for+discussion%5C%2FLog%2F+insource%3A%2Fdisambiguation%5C%29%5C%29%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1&searchToken=aj6kbknvyvtay16p5wngi20ye] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%2FRedirects+for+discussion%5C%2FLog%2F+insource%3A%2F%5C%28disambiguation%5C%29+%5C%28disambiguation%5C%29%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1&searchToken=cpv446nrkk7gbzzuioksy18qs] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=intitle%3A%2FRedirects+for+discussion%5C%2FLog%2F+insource%3A%2F%5C%28disambiguation+%5C%7D%5C%7D%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1]. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' while I like the idea; I don't think this will reduce the load on RfD. Maybe what is needed is a proposed deletion process. I think we can expand [[WP:PROD]] to include redirects. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 19:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
*:Please also see [[User_talk:176.33.241.125#Can you group all your misspaced parentheses RfDs into one nomination?]] where I give a kind request for all the similar redirects to be in one nomination to make discussion easier to follow. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
*:From memory, a PROD for redirects has been rejected previously and I oppose it now. PROD only works for pages that are reasonably well watched, but very few redirects are watched other than by their creators (and not even always then) so PRODed redirects are unlikely to be seen. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*::Do you think extending the PROD duration and maybe having a bot update the list of PRODded redirects periodically would solve this problem? [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::Also I disagree that PROD won't work for pages not well watched; we have maintenance categories where people can review PRODs and reject them if they disagree. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq|PROD only works for pages that are reasonably well watched}}: it was my impression that PROD is used largely by new page patrol, so that wouldn't be the case. No? [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::I personally think PROD should be available to all types of pages but that's a different discussion. In any case these redirects shouldn't be left to clutter the search etc for 7 days. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. These RfD end the same and are basically just a waste of editorial time and take time away from the other nominations. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 13:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|Utopes|p=}} just sent another batch of redirects to RfD today, so pinging them here. Also pinging {{ping|Steel1943|p=}}, who previously nominated several RDAB redirects, and notifying {{u|176.33.241.125}} on their talk page. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks for the tip! I didn't even realize this was a discussion taking place when I sent those, will leave a comment now. 👍 <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 20:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Neutral'''</s>. I'm concerned drive-by admins will delete redirects that look like disambiguation issues when the title is actually valid (false positives). Examples: {{No redirect|BSc(Hons)}} (currently nominated at RFD) and {{No redirect|JANET(UK)}} (apparently, a valid alternative/former name for its target [see its [[special:History/JANET(UK)|edit history]] for my back-and-forth edits on this].) Yeah, given my level of participation in these redirects, one would think I would be supporting this ... but not so much since I'm concerned administrators may not get it right the first time when enforcing such a speedy deletion criterion, which has a potential to cause harm to the encyclopedia. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 19:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Create a temporary criterion''' "X3" until the numbers get low enough to where it can be reasonably appealed. Thinking about this, turns out I'm okay if this is the chosen path, given that I think "X" criteria tend to make admins do a double take and research the redirect's history prior to deleting the redirect. Seems like such a situation could appease all parties. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 23:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
*I've stuffed the (full, unfiltered) results into subpages of [[User:Cryptic/Improper disambiguation redirects]], and am going to spend a few hours classifying them - maybe all of them, but at least the first subpage which has the thousand most recent. Yes, even the relatively-easy-to-detect chemical ones. A problematic case with two examples has already jumped out at me (maybe the same sort as Steel1943's above, I haven't looked at them) - {{!r|CPUSA(PW)}}/{{!r|CPUSA(P)}} and {{!r|PCd'I(ml)}}. Would the advocates of this criterion speedy those? And if not, how are they excluded by this wording? —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*:The first two should be excluded as they "will [be] correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces" - determined by them being listed in bold in the target article without spaces. [[PCd'I(ml)]] does not appear to be correct - the article uses the acronym spaced and every unspaced google hit seems to relate to this redirect, so would be correctly speedily deleted. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*No confidence that some heathen who thinks there should be a space before the param list of function prototypes won't use this as an excuse to speedy [[int main(void)]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' if I create the list, and improper disambiguation does not affect some titles like 501(c)(3) and chemical names like Cadmium(I). [[Special:Contributions/176.33.241.125|176.33.241.125]] ([[User talk:176.33.241.125|talk]]) 01:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''': <span class="anchor" id="Dsuke"></span> Such redirects are almost invariably getting deleted at RfD – I haven't found a single nomination in the last 30 days that closed as anything other than "delete", though [[WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 30#BSc(Hons)|BSc(Hons)]] seems headed to "keep". – This proposal will probably reduce the backlog and editor workload considerably. My only issues are the potential misuse/careless use of the criterion, hence why I would additionally support a listing of major exceptions (chemical names come to my mind but there are others). [[User:Dsuke1998AEOS|Dsuke1998AEOS]] ([[User talk:Dsuke1998AEOS|talk]]) 02:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''', but would love to support a criteria that can be used to clean these. From what I've seen, while these titles might look the same, the backgrounds for all can be vastly different. As an example based on my personal experiences, I set out to find the total number of film redirects that were exactly: Foo(film). There were 172 of these, yet their histories were always varied. (I found it useful to display these titles in a Massviews chart). There are some pages that were recently created, and could qualify for R3 (although not usually). Sometimes, these were intentionally created with the lack-of-space, but most of the time these titles came about as left-behind from moves. Sometimes these were created at a bad title with extensive histories before being BLAR'd into the version that already exists, or may contain convoluted reversions between two titles that only differ in their spacing. In some of these cases though, G6 is likely to apply under the stipulation that they're ''"redirect(s) left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title."'' (which directly comes from [[Template:Db-error]]). The reason I'm neutral is because while I agree that these titles should be ridden of, I don't know if there is a clear-cut description would lead to deletion at this stage, more than what we already have described in G6 and R3. I agree something needs to be done, but investigating the histories seems to be an absolute requirement here, which cancels out a lot of these situations I'd think. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*:As a question to this, would [[Shock(film)]] be eligible for CSD under this criteria, with its history? What about [[Rockers(film)]], which survived RfD? [[Brij Bhoomi(film)]] has 173 pageviews this month (due to its multiple incoming links), but would it also be CSD-able under this criteria despite it getting 17 views a day? At RfD I'd !vote to delete all of these for sure, but what I don't know is whether CSD makes the deletions too hasty, and whether there is value in investigating their histories and circumstances for existence. These are just the (film) redirects, and I don't know how complicated the other titles could be. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*::{{Ping|Utopes}} "{{Tq|...there is value in investigating [the redirects'] histories and circumstances for existence...}}" There always is, which is one of the reasons I cannot sway my opinion one way or another to codify these redirects as eligible for CSD. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 22:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::As more and more examples get brought up, I'm becoming less and less certain that speedy deletion beyond R3 and G6 is possible in a way that is not too narrow to be useful and not too broad so as to catch things that shouldn't be deleted. I need to think more. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{ec}}I agree with that, yes. This is my concern as well. When looking through these titles, the backgrounds can be vastly different. When putting the Foo(film) RfD together, I was skipping over pages in history, because those would need to be checked on a case-by-case basis, presumably. It was unclear to me whether this new CSD criteria puts weight into histories, and if so, by how much? If we take away the pages with history, we're left with a decently smaller number of applicable pages, and the question becomes whether a whole criterion is necessary for the [X] number of cases that are safe to outright delete. I don't know how much that number is. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*::::I guess my follow-up would be to find a comparison. How are histories dealt with other R CSD criteria? I feel like I've seen situations where a page (and its history) are replaced with a redirect (I think it was to Draftspace, but I can't recall), which was then tagged as R2'd by someone who followed up with the page. How "valuable" is the page history there? I'd presume it's checked every time, so doing it here might not be that unconventional. The question becomes what constitutes a "valuable history" that makes CSD a safe action for redirects that meet R5. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::::It ''should'' be checked every time, as with all other speedy criteria. I have no confidence that it ''is''. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 02:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
*So, I've finished sorting the most recent 2000 and least-recent 1100ish page titles containing an open-paren not preceded by a space at [[User:Cryptic/Improper disambiguation redirects]] (I was never going to get through all of them, and had only been fooled into thinking I could because SDZeroBot initially only gave me about a third of the results). The conclusions I'm drawing from that are:{{blist|1=We should make it explicit that this only applies to disambiguators per se, not parenthesized text that's part of the redirect subject's proper name, even if it's misspaced or misspelled. (This sounds obvious to me when it's put like that, but nobody's brought it up as the general case, even though more specific subcases like chemicals and section names have been.) So {{!r|It's On(Dr.Dre)187um Killa}} and {{!r|INS Talwar(F40)}} and {{!r|Cheeses...(of Nazereth)}} wouldn't be speedyable, but restatements of the proper name or redundant parenthesized names like in {{!r|King Edward Medical university(KEMU)}} and {{!r|SsangYong Rodius(Stavic)}} could be. "Plausibly be searched for without spaces" is too vague, fails NEWCSD#1, and will be abused.|2=Section names like [[501(c)(3)]] aren't common. Chemical names and processes are very, very common, and I didn't notice any incorrectly-formed disambiguators in chemistry-related redirects. If we're mentioning broad classes of counterexamples, that should be the first. I further think we should specifically exclude the entire subject area ''even if the disambiguator of a chemistry-related redirect is ill-formed and it would otherwise qualify''.|3=These aren't frequent. There are a lot of extant cases, but we only see a handful of new ones a month. This seems to be a recurring theme at RFD - someone finds some broad new class of malformed redirects that have been accumulating since 2001, starts nominating them at RFD - sometimes properly in batches, sometimes individually! - and then it finds its way here, even though new ones aren't being rapidly created, and those that are fall under existing criteria.}}I've commented multiple times above, so I'll bold a position here: I '''oppose''' this as a permanent criterion, for being infrequent, redundant to R3, and error-prone; I'm neutral on a temporary X- series criterion until the old ones are dealt with. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 03:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
*:We can't delete anything under R3 unless it was created recently. It would make more sense to expand the scope of [[WP:G14]], which already includes {{tq|(disambiguation)}} redirects. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 05:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
*::Well, yes, R3 is recent only. ''Quite'' obviously. As I mentioned above. But there's a finite, relatively small, number of non-recent ones: roughly 5000, based on the sample I analyzed, and that's assuming a vanishingly-small number of redirects with non-redirect history (which I didn't check for). As soon as they're gone - and that'll happen quickly, the admins vying for topspot at the awful [[WP:ADMINSTATS]] scoreboard query for speedy candidates like these and feed them into Twinkle - it'll be entirely redundant. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 03:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
*:: {{Tq|admins vying for topspot at the awful [[WP:ADMINSTATS]] scoreboard}} - surely not: the top admin there is behind the second-top admin by 400,000 deletions and so 5000 entries would be trivial. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 03:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
*:::I hadn't realized about these all time lists. It's just as I've always suspected, there's just no keeping up with Explicit. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 04:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as a useful tool. Even if the current situation looks temporary, forcing repeated discussions isn't a good use of anyone's time. Also, there's no way of knowing it won't flare up again at some point, since redirects aren't necessarily closely watched and these sorts of mistakes can steadily build up unnoticed; hell, this discussion is going on now because it already happened once. I don't buy the arguments that admins should be assumed to be total rubes, it doesn't actually take a PhD to recognize scientific nomenclatures and other idiosyncratic spellings aren't the same as Wikipedia disambiguators. If there's that much concern, just create a [[:Category:Redirects with unspaced parentheticals]] or something similar; don't force people to murder untold numbers of characters and minutes of their lives they're not getting back. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Thryduulf}}, what I think could be helpful would be if we can identify which / how many of these qualify for G6 or R3 ''already'', and use those existing criteria where appropriate. Once ''all'' of the G6/R3 candidates are addressed, maybe we can take a look at what remains, and the commonalities between them? If I had to guess, maybe 50% of these were unambiguously created in error and currently actionable?<small><nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki></small> which might allow us to compartmentalize this block bit by bit. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 20:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


*'''Strong Oppose''' these redirects are entirely harmless. We may as well have them since they likely bring a small net benefit to the encyclopedia. The do no damage. ''Readers don't know our guidelines on how to format the disambiguator'', and [[WP:RF|readers are our priority]], not top-down decisions based on overly-finicky guidelines.[[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 13:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
== Extend R2 to portals ==
*Would they qualify under [[WP:G6]]?<span id="Qwerfjkl:1707945475258:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNCriteria_for_speedy_deletion" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)</span>
{{atop|This was withdrawn after discussion concluded that Portals shouldn't be moved to draftspace in the first place. I'm formally closing this now so it can be archived soon. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 16:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)}}
*: The very fact that this is controversial indicates it isn't a G6. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Two days ago [[WP:R2]] was boldly extended to apply to redirects from the portal namespace. There appears to be some disagreement at least on what exceptions there should be. Could we decide on all that here first? Pinging involved editors: {{u|Legacypac}}, {{u|Thryduulf}}, {{u|Tavix}}. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 19:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*:The ones that were very obviously created by or when fixing a mistake (most commonly this is evidenced by being moved to and from this title by the same person in quick succession) do qualify as G6, but this only applies to some of the redirects that would fall under this criterion (either because they were created deliberately or because it isn't obvious whether creation was intentional or not). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:Mainspace and Portal space are both reader facing content spaces. Draft space is for stuff that is not intended for readers. Links between Mainspace and Portal space and vice versa are fine but if a portal is draftified it is exactly like draftifying an article so the redirect should be immediately deleted. When there were 1700 mostly dead portals this was not frequent problem but now we have 4500 new automated portals that are being examined and I expect a bunch will be placed in some Draft holding pen out of view while consideration of their future is done. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' Agree with editor Cremastra that these are harmless and possibly a bit helpful as {{tl|R from typo}}s; however, the issue is that they are being deleted anyway and clogging RfD, which begs for a solution. And this solution does the trick as long as care is taken not to delete needed redirects that just look like the bad guys. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)</small>
::{{u|Legacypac}}, it is not clear that this is a very common occurrence that would require it to be covered by CSD. Also, draft portals can just be left in portal space. If they are not linked to from any articles or other portals, there is no fundamental problem with keeping unfinished portals around in portal space. The mass-produced automatic portals should be deleted, not draftified. Classic portals with many subpages simply can't be moved around in any meaningful way, so instead of being draftified, they should just be tagged with some template that tells any accidental readers that it is unfinished and that they should go read something else. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 19:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I'm worried that, as worded, the proposed criterion doesn't take into account page history that (a) may be required to be kept for attribution in the case of [[Template:R from merge|redirects from merges]] (which might lead to accidental breaches of licensing requirements), or (b) [[Template:R with history|is otherwise useful]]; both of which are listed in the redirect guideline's [[WP:R#K1|reasons for keeping redirects]]. I'm also worried that it doesn't take into account the age of these redirects - some may have existed for a significant length of time and/or may be [[Template:R with old history|redirects with old history]], which [[WP:R#K4|are listed in the guideline]] as redirects that {{tq|should not normally be deleted without good reason}} & that {{tq|should be left alone}}. I also share {{u|Cremastra}}'s view about these redirects being harmless - in RfD discussions I've seen where such redirects have been nominated, I sometimes see [[WP:RDAB]] being cited; however, that shortcut links to an essay that doesn't explain '''''why''''' such redirects are costly enough as to warrant deletion (as opposed to being [[WP:CHEAP|cheap]]). With the greatest respect to {{u|Paine Ellsworth}},<sup>/gen</sup> I'm very hesitant to think we should be creating a new CSD criterion for redirects that may be being deleted at RfD when (arguably) they should be being kept, especially when they are {{tq|possibly...helpful}} (which is [[WP:R#K5|another reason in the guideline for keeping them]]). {{small|Only a comment for now while things are still mulling around in my head, but I think I'll add a bolded !vote at some point relatively soon.}} All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;[[User:A smart kitten|a&nbsp;smart kitten]]<sub>[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|meow]]]</sub> 01:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' until [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals]] is resolved. I don't see the point in draftifying portals if they are going to be deleted anyway. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*:'''Strong oppose''' per my comments above. I am heavily unconvinced that these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion in the first place. To take a few recent RfD examples ([{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Noesis(software)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Nimki(2018 Film)}}], [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Paandi Muni(2018 film)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Princess Allurra(Voltron)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Lance(Voltron)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Pidge(Voltron)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#John Connaughton(financier)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5#Shock(film)}}]), often in such discussions the only reason given for deleting them is {{tq|per WP:RDAB}} - but, as I mentioned above, that essay section doesn't explain ''why'' these redirects are at all costly and/or problematic (and so, arguably, isn't a valid rationale for deletion - especially when considering that {{tqq|[[WP:CHEAP|redirects are cheap]]}} is one of the [[WP:RGUIDE|guiding principles of RfD]]). I'm concerned that a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|local consensus]] may have formed at RfD to delete these redirects, and I wouldn't want to create a speedy deletion criterion that further embeds this. All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;[[User:A smart kitten|a&nbsp;smart kitten]]<sub>[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|meow]]]</sub> 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
*{{ec}} Main → Portal and Portal → Main redirects should not be speedily deleted under R2 as they are both reader-facing namespaces with encyclopaedic content. Such redirects will not always be optimal but that is a matter that should be discussed at RfD as deletion is not going to be the best action for all of them. This means that, if R2 applies to portals at all (which I have no strong opinions about) then the main namespace needs to be listed as an exception. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Considering many RfD participants don't watch this page or subscribe to FRS, is it reasonable to advertise this RfC via an editnotice at RfD? [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
:: agreed 100% with Thryduulf's refinement. I disagree with waiting because the nuclear option is not going to delete all portals, only many portals. There are a bunch of legacy portals that may well be draftified and dealt with seperately. I actually tagged a portal=>Draft redirect R2 but it did not display properly, then I tagged it housekeeping with a not it was R2 and that was accepted. I don't see this change as an expansion, more a refinement of wording based on the principle of the CSD. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Create a temporary criterion''' per Steel and Cryptic. These redirects are a countable list and will go away in some time. Hence I would not prefer a "R5" as this becomes redundant once the backlog is gone. Also, we need the updated wordings incorporating Crouch Swale's suggestions about page history, which was also A Smart Kitten's concern.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span><span style="font-size:115%">[[User talk:Jay| 💬]]</span> 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Then how about a separate bullet point for R2 that includes any other namespace to draft, so we don't get a bunch of potentially-confusing exceptions and includes anything that has been draftified (eg: templates, books). --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*:The problem with making it temporary is that this backlog already built up once, so removing it once this current issue is resolved allows it to build up again. The other two temporary criteria were to deal with issues that definitively weren't going to recur, which is not the case with this; people will still inevitably create these bad redirects. Why take away a useful tool? [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 15:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
::::Good idea. Add the words "Also any redirect to Draft namespace, except from user namespace." This way anything draftified from any random spot (like I saw someone post a draft as a category recently) can be moved and the redirect nuked. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*::My understanding behind the suggestions for a temporary criterion is that once the backlog is cleared, the combination of a report, R3 and G6 would mean there aren't enough redirects to meet NEWCSD criterion 3 (frequent). Of course there is nothing stopping us enacting a temporary criterion and then making it permanent later if the issue remains ongoing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Legacypac}}, redirects created because a page was obviously created in the wrong namespace are already covered under G6. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*:::If there's a choice, I'd definitely take a temporary criterion over nothing at all. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 03:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Tavix}}, the question is why we would want to move pages from non-mainspace to draft anyway. I am unconvinced that this is a good idea, as many namespaces have their own special features. Draft books should be in Book space, just as draft TimedTexts should be in TimedText namespace. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 19:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support with caveat''' that it excludes redirects with a substantial non-redirect history. That situation is rare enough to be worth discussing; and there could easily be situations where eg. an article was turned into a redirect that fits this description, which nobody noticed, and is then listed under this CSD - it wouldn't even have to have been done maliciously (although ofc it could be.) And if there ''is'' a history, whether due to a merge or whatever, this CSD would usually be the wrong approach anyway - in that case you'd want to move the redirect to preserve history and attribution, rather than create a new one that lacks them. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::That makes sense to me. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CHEAP]]. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 03:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}


=== Discussion (Improper disambiguation redirects) ===
The "special features" argument just convinced me no Portal should be in Draftspace. It breaks them anyway. Can you make that point at AN against the idea of sending Portals to Draftfor more work? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Legacypac}}, done. One problem with the current portals discussion is that it is so fragmented... but the AN discussion should fix the main issue soon. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Point of order''' - I'm not following the discussion this was forked from so I don't really get what's happening, but the redirect criteria apply to redirects in any namespace, including portal redirects. If the proposal is to apply the R criteria to portals themselves, then oppose, R criteria are for redirects. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
{{abottom}}


Skimming over some of the [[WP:VPPOL#How to word G5 expansion/G15 new criteria|discussion at VPPOL regarding the recent G5 RFC]], it appears there is a view that RFCs to establish a new speedy deletion criterion should be advertised on [[T:CENT]]; which I am personally amenable to. Looking in [[WP:CENT/A]], I can't see that it's already been notified there. What are others' views on the idea of adding this to CENT? I would be in favour of it, but I wanted to hear from other editors first. All the best, <span style="color:#595959">&zwj;—&zwj;</span>[[User:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">a&nbsp;smart kitten</span>]]<sub style="color:#595959">[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">meow</span>]]]</sub> 03:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
== Provide for CSD criterion X3: Mass-created portals ==
{{transcluded section|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}}
{{#section-h:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|Proposal 4: Provide for [[WP:CSD|CSD]] criterion X3}}


:While I have no objection to doing so, I don't think it's worth it as there isn't a clear consensus here and I don't think more input is going to significantly change that. More workshopping leading to a second proposal that was advertised on CENT would be a better use of time I think. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
== Proposal: Expand G13 to outline drafts ==
::That's a fair point. <span style="color:#595959">&zwj;—&zwj;</span>[[User:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">a&nbsp;smart kitten</span>]]<sub style="color:#595959">[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">meow</span>]]]</sub> 23:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Archive top|This was resolved by the original proposers already [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)}}
:After skimming through the discussion prior to closing, I got here. At this point, I can close this per [[WP:PGCHANGE]] since it wasn't properly advertised, or this RfC can be relisted and then advertised at T:CENT, VPPOL, and other appropriate places. I personally prefer the latter, since I see a consensus forming around creating X3 that excludes redirects with a substantive page history or redirects from merges. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 03:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::Personally, I'd prefer a new proposal with a specific proposed wording to be the one advertised to make it clear what people are supporting/opposing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 04:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::Does this work for people? {{talk quote|1=
X3: '''Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation''', e.g. "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, nor does it apply if the redirect contains substantive page history (e.g. from a merge). <em>Before</em> nominating a redirect under this criterion:<ul><li>Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist</li><li>Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version.</li></ul><!-- Using wikitext in the template is not working for me? -->
}} <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 17:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes I think that makes sense per my above comments. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:::There is a typo ("not does it apply" should be "nor does it apply"), and I wouldn't object to giving an example of "correctly or plausibly" but other than those two minor points this looks good to me. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::::<p>I have silently corrected the typo. As for examples, I did not include any because I honestly could not think of any (which certainly does not mean they don't exist, but does very much mean I am open to suggestions). In e.g. {{noredirect|501(c)(3)}}, "(3)" is not a {{tq|parenthetical disambiguation}}. Likewise for things like {{noredirect|Dysprosium(III) nitride}}: the "(III)" is not a disambiguator.</p><p>If there are no other points, I will look to launch an RfC with a CENT listing ~tomorrow. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 18:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)</p>


===RfC: enacting X3===
Should [[WP:G13|CSD G13]] be expanded to include subpages of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outlines#Outline_starts:|WP:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts]]? —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua">&nbsp;python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder&nbsp;</span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
{{crt|1=There is '''consensus''' for implementing X3. There is support for implementing a speedy deletion criterion of some sort–that much is clear. More contested was whether or not said criterion should be temporary, as was proposed here, or permanent, as was proposed in an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=1212470718#First_RfC aborted previous RfC]. Valid arguments were presented on both sides regarding this matter, but, as many supporters' rationales did not comment on this debate at all, their support should be presumed to be for the actual proposal laid out in front of them, which was for X3. This close does not preclude an RfC to implement a permanent criterion held at a later date. {{nac}} [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 14:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1712858475}}
Should X3 (redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation) be enacted as a temporary CSD? 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


'''Proposed text:'''
*'''Support''' as proposer. These draft outlines have by and large not been updated in a few years. The only thing keeping them alive is that they were not created in the proper namespace. Were they in draftspace, they would have pretty much all been deleted. [[WP:WEBHOST|Wikipedia is not a web host.]] —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua">&nbsp;python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder&nbsp;</span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
<div style="background:ivory; padding:0.1em 1em; border:1px solid gray;">
*'''Support''' there are around 700 according to some info I found. Most are mindless mass fill in the blank mass creations while others are a sea of redlinks. Every one of these Drafts duplicates an existing title in mainspace. No change to Twinkle is required, all the Gx CSDs work in Wikipedia space. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
'''X3: Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation''', e.g. "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does <strong>not</strong> apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, nor does it apply if the redirect contains substantive page history (e.g. from a merge). <em>Before</em> nominating a redirect under this criterion:
*'''Oppose''' expanding G13 just for this narrow one-off issue. The solution is to move these pages to the Draftspace and then apply g13 as usual (IMHO a pagemove does not "reset the clock" on the 6-mo waiting period). Would not oppose expansion of G13 to cover all drafts housed in any WikiProject, however. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
:* and the list of pages is [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline|here]]: it's 183 non-redirected pages; achievable in a single nom. by a dedicated MfD-er. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version
:::Since the problem is smaller than I understood it to be I now think this group of interested users can move and G13 or MfD as applicable. Faster than trying to get consensus for an expanded CSD. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
</div>
* I also agree that a WikiProject's drafts shouldn't be treated like userspace. They should be moved to draftspace and / or deleted if they dead. '''Support''' both this and UnitedStatesian's extended proposal. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. These are all redirects which are [[WP:RDAB|errors in the act of disambiguation]], and thus has no natural affinity with the article in question. I will also add that in the above discussion people have explained why this is A Good Thing; I will let them explain their own reasoning rather than attempt to filter it through my voice. I will note that this is supposed to be a temporary criterion per [[WP:NEWCSD]] criterion 4, as once the "backlog" has been cleared it will be redundant to [[WP:R3]]. (For transparency, this comment includes a hidden ping to everyone who commented above. I have opted for a hidden ping to avoid the distraction of a bunch of usernames.) {{Hidden ping|Aquillion|A smart kitten|Awesome Aasim|BD2412|ComplexRational|Cremastra|Crouch, Swale|Cryptic|Dsuke1998AEOS|Gonnym|Hey man im josh|HouseBlaster|InfiniteNexus|Ivanvector|Jay|Largoplazo|Paine Ellsworth|Pppery|Qwerfjkl|Steel1943|Tavix|The Blade of the Northern Lights|Thryduulf|Utopes|Voorts}} <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
* Support expanding G13 to include all drafts in Wikipedia space. I also agree that fixing the namespace does not reset the clock on G13. Draft space and G13 were created to get drafts out of the AFC Wikiproject space so this is just tweaking the wording to match the original intent. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion]], [[Template:Centralized discussion]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 17:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
*'''Oppose'''. We should not be expanding any CSD criteria for such a small reason (note the frequency requirement for new criteria applies equally to modifications). ''IF'' they are actually causing problems then they can be dealt with at MfD. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - seems to be covered in the X3 proposal above. If that passes then this is unnecessary, and if not then there is also no consensus for this back-door. Also, perennial oppose to expanding G13. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per HouseBlaster and my comments in the preceding section (tldr; when nominated at RfD these redirects are inevitably deleted). Although it is very likely that once the backlog is cleared the combination of R3 and G6 will make the need for this redundant we can discuss making it permanent if that turns out not to be the case. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' it may be better to make it permanent because some redirects will likely later get missed and then becoming too old for R3 but its better than nothing. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:*To clarify, X3 as drafted would only cover pages in the Portal: namespace, not these, which are in the Wikipedia: namespace. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''', per my [[#c-A_smart_kitten-20240216015900-Thryduulf-20240202133400|comments]] in the previous RfC. Although this proposed criterion takes into account page history, it doesn't factor in redirects' ages - which may lead to redirects that have existed for some time (including potentially [[Template:R with old history|redirects with old history]]) being deleted; despite [[WP:R#K4|the Redirect guideline]] stating that these {{tq|should be left alone}}. Furthermore, and most importantly, the essay cited as the deletion rationale ([[WP:RDAB]], part of [[WP:COSTLY]]) doesn't explain why these redirects are harmful enough to warrant deletion at all - simply stating that, in the opinion of the essayist, {{tq|there is no need to redirect from}} them. As far as I can see, these redirects are entirely harmless. As I said in the previous discussion: {{pb}}{{talkquote|I am heavily unconvinced that these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion in the first place. To take a few recent RfD examples ([{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Noesis(software)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Nimki(2018 Film)}}], [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Paandi Muni(2018 film)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Princess Allurra(Voltron)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Lance(Voltron)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#Pidge(Voltron)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 6#John Connaughton(financier)}}] [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5#Shock(film)}}]), often in such discussions the only reason given for deleting them is {{tq|per WP:RDAB}} - but, as I mentioned above, that essay section doesn't explain ''why'' these redirects are at all costly and/or problematic (and so, arguably, isn't a valid rationale for deletion - especially when considering that {{tqq|[[WP:CHEAP|redirects are cheap]]}} is one of the [[WP:RGUIDE|guiding principles of RfD]]). I'm concerned that a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|local consensus]] may have formed at RfD to delete these redirects, and I wouldn't want to create a speedy deletion criterion that further embeds this.}}{{pb}}All the best, <span style="color:#595959">&zwj;—&zwj;</span>[[User:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">a&nbsp;smart kitten</span>]]<sub style="color:#595959">[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">meow</span>]]]</sub> 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. There isn't even a good reason to delete them. They are an appropriate as the WikiProject subpages. What is the issue? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
::Says the guy who opposed the existance of these same pages several years ago because they would become mainspace pages. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 02:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
*:Redirects with significant history, including old history, are excluded from this criterion. That doesn't invalidate the rest of your comment though. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*::For clarity, when I used the phrase {{tq|redirects with old history}}, I was referring to redirects with entries in the page history from previous versions of Wikipedia - i.e., those that {{t|R with old history}} would be applied to. I read the phrase {{tq|substantive page history}} in the proposed criterion as referring to an article (instead of just a redirect) being present in the history - therefore, my understanding was that redirects with old history are not necessarily excluded from this criterion. All the best, <span style="color:#595959">&zwj;—&zwj;</span>[[User:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">a&nbsp;smart kitten</span>]]<sub style="color:#595959">[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">meow</span>]]]</sub> 18:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::: I don’t remember exactly what you are talking about. I oppose portals in mainspace, but they never were. I oppose creative content forking, but I encouraged auto-creation of Portals that would auto-update with editing of articles, eg Portals transcending ledes from articles depending on their position in category trees. I haven’t been following the activity, but it sounds like TTH has gone too big too fast. This reaction however is an over reaction. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
*:::I meant {{tq|substantive page history}} to mean something like {{tq|page history with something more than adding/removing rcats/fixing double redirects/etc}}.<span id="HouseBlaster:1709839505690:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNCriteria_for_speedy_deletion" class="FTTCmt"> <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
::::Too different stupid projects SmokeyJoe. This is about hos Outlines of Everything project. Today I found a discussion where you did not want these outlines in mainspace ever. It was an interesting read. You argued they duplicated portals and that they were content forks. I agree with you. He later abandoned Outlines and moved to Portals, with the same rational and agendas. The two projects are like siblings. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
*::::Why not just add this to the "e.g." parenthetical above? I think that would avoid further confusion. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::::: I have a fair memory of this. Yes, outlines in mainspace were content forking. Yes, outlines and portals were and are two manifestations of the same thing, attempts at readable summaries of broad areas mainly for navigation purposes. I advised TTH to merge the two concepts, to abandon mainspace outlines, and to look to real time auto-generation of portal contents to avoid the problem of content forking. New portals, continuing portals, all portals except for the very few actually active portals, should contain no creative editing. They should be created by coding. TTH has followed my advice, so I should be pleased, and can hardly be quick to support deletion. However, he has failed [[WP:MEATBOT]]. He should have demonstrated working prototypes, maybe ten working auto-portals that update themselves based on changing article content. He should not have created thousands of new portals. The rancour generated is understandable, and completely to have been expected. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
*<small>Notified [[Wikipedia talk:Redirect]] & [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect]] of this discussion. <span style="color:#595959">&zwj;—&zwj;</span>[[User:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">a&nbsp;smart kitten</span>]]<sub style="color:#595959">[<nowiki/>[[User talk:A smart kitten|<span style="color:#595959">meow</span>]]]</sub> 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Oppose''' if they are causing harm, propose a mass deletion at MfD; no policy changes required. If they are not causing harm, [[WP:NOTCLEANUP]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' If there seriously is a problem with these kinds of redirects then sure, go ahead. But I am failing to see how these can just all be nominated in one big RfD with consensus to delete. Are there too many of them? I know the IP that was doing the nomination of them failed to group the redirects appropriately together in a single nomination. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Too much of a niche; [[WP:MFD|miscellany for deletion]] is well equipped to handle such pages if necessary. <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 04:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*:Grouping up nominations more often then not leads to a failed nomination as editors just can't handle a large amount. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 16:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CHEAP]]. I fail to see what harm these redirects are causing and would recommend instead to just leave them alone. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 18:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' What is the problem that needs to be solved? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 18:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support'''</s>, this is a convention that affects a quite-literally-"random" selection of pages that happened to have issues. While it is good to create redirects for reasonable typos based on different way that search terms can be spelled, errors in the act of disambiguation are not useful or plausible typos to keep. Out of the millions of pages that have parenthesis in their titles, there is not a single time when I, nor you, nor anyone would expect that the [[Foo(bar)]] version exists for the same title. Basically, if you were to purposely leave off this space when searching for a title, there is a 0.1% chance that the redirect would exist (as it's a group of thousands among a pool of millions). It's totally unreliable, will never be intentionally typed, and all-in-all exist as clutter among incoming links with the potential to drown out and dilute the actually likely typos. To quote [[WP:COSTLY]], redirects also need looking after. While they may not take up a lot of bandwidth on their own, these faulty titles have been a [[WP:PANDORA]]'s box cracked wide open, which has led to a surplus of unexpected corners where edits can go undetected. Out of the thousands of affected redirects, I'll estimate that 10%(?) have substantial history, as duplicate pages left unincorporated for anywhere up to a decade and beyond in some cases. That's still hundreds of titles with histories! Of course these such cases wouldn't apply under this new CSD criterion, but by removing the titles that have no reason to exist, a higher focus can be placed on the titles that ''ARE'' distinguished by their complicated histories, most of which haven't seen the light of day from their peculiar, isolated locations.
:All in all, an uncontrolled surplus of these titles makes it difficult to monitor new content, harder for editors to track changes and split histories, adds unnecessary and unlikely filler to redirect lists, maintains a faulty narrative that it's okay to move a title to "Foo(bar)" if "Foo (bar)" is salted for whatever reason, or that it's okay to have these unlikely parenthetical errors in titles (which always get ejected to new titles per the MOS anyway), and just all-in-all makes navigation less consistent to randomly account for an implausible typo redirect that exists 0.1% of the time. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 20:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::Based on my comment below, I am moving to '''oppose''' the current version. I would hypothetically support a permanent R5 that does not include the bullet points, which puts the onus unnecessarily on new page patrollers to continuously be jumping through hoops to follow these. As it stands there is a very high reliance on the idea that "once these are deleted ''then'' we will start catching everything with R3/G6/RfD" which is exactly what is going on right now, with very little success. This is plucking the flower without detaching the root of the issue. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 02:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' since I suggested it above. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 20:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)</s>
*:Blarg, my own comment further down in the discussion concerns me. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 22:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' per Tavix and my comments above. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 20:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' per {{noping|Hey man im josh}} below.</s> '''Preferably without the two bullet points, and preferably permanently'''. In regards to deleting the two bullet points, CSDs should be simple. We should not be putting the burden of checking other pages, editing other pages, etc in order to place a CSD on patrollers and administrators. I'd prefer to keep CSDs simple, without a bunch of little gotchas and caveats. The complexity of NPP workflows is a big problem, slowing down review times and leading to NPP burnout. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 21:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*:"{{Tq|...We should not be putting the burden of checking other pages, editing other pages, etc in order to place a CSD on patrollers and administrators.}}" For what it's worth, such actions ''have'' to be taken in some cases, such as for [[WP:R4]] and most of [[WP:G8]], and for good reasons; thus, that quoted claim cannot be applied across the board. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*::G14, A2 and A10 all require checking the existence and/or content of other pages too. G12 requires checking for external sources. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*:It seems that this RFC's wording says that the CSD is temporary, but lists no expiration date. Is this really a temporary X criteria if this CSD has no expiration date? Perhaps it would make more sense to have this as a permanent R criteria, then use an RFC to repeal it later. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Changing to '''Oppose'''. This proposed criteria is too complicated because of the two bullets. I do not like the idea of a CSD where patrollers and admins are required to do a bunch of cleanup steps before placing or executing the CSD. The two bullet points put a lot of burden on the patroller and deleting admin. Are these bullets required when filing RFDs or closing RFDs? This is more cleanup burden than the status quo, if I'm understanding things correctly. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 02:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Replying to both your comments in order: neither X1 nor X2 had built-in expiration dates; they were just repealed when the cleanup was done. And this is complicated because it is temporary: there are people (e.g. me) who are volunteering to complete the steps required by the two bullet points to clean up the backlog of incorrectly spaced disambiguations. Put differently, this is not meant for e.g. NPPers (though they are welcome to use it), instead it is meant for people who volunteer to help with this backlog. If you (generic you) wish to use RFD, nobody will stop you; this is a shortcut for the people who feel like it is a shortcut. But a discussion takes volunteer time; I think it is easier to check [[Special:WhatLinksHere]] and potentially create a redirect (both of which could be linked from the CSD template for ease of use) than have a weeklong discussion. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''<s>Comment</s> Support''' (summoned by bot). I’m supportive in principle, but the discussion above highlighted some instructive examples, such as the chemistry false positives, and the film examples where each case seemed to warrant individual investigation, so I’m a little hesitant on whether this change might reduce due diligence that would have caught false positives. Then again, if that happens, just recreate them? [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 22:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*:The Chemistry examples would not be in scope because the text in the parentheses is not a disambiguator, similarly anything that is correctly rendered without a space cannot be deleted by this. The concern with the film redirects was almost entirely that some have substantial history, such redirects are explicitly excluded from this this criterion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Fair enough, I have upgraded my comment to a Support. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 20:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment/Question''' (probably primarily to those "support"-ing this proposal): Does ''anybody'' recall why the texts at [[WP:UNNATURAL]] and [[WP:RDAB]] were written? I've ... unfortunately slept since they were added to [[Wikipedia:Redirects are costly]], and the comments above by {{No ping|The Banner}} and {{No ping|Barnards.tar.gz}} seem to validate that without quick-to-find context, this proposal may be a bit confusing to understand regarding what problem it is trying to solve, especially for those who do not visit [[WP:RFD]] regularly. If anyone recalls the reasons and/or precedents, it may need to be added to [[Wikipedia:Redirects are costly]] or even [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes]] since I just realized that ... I don't see this as an example at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes]], and I would have expected to have found it there. [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 22:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the exceptions have been well thought out, the risk of unintended consequences seems low. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 05:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Utopes. While these redirects are cheap, the effort wasted on individually judging their deletion is not. Without this proposal, it is apparent that editors unfamiliar with this discussion will continue to flood RfD with uncontroversial deletion requests. [[User:BluePenguin18|<span style="color:#0074FF">BluePenguin18&nbsp;🐧</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:BluePenguin18|💬]]&nbsp;) 05:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my comments in the previous discussion – individual nominations have invariably resulted in a clear consensus to delete. I trust that the reviewing admins would catch most false positives. Perhaps this could then be incorporated into R3 after the current round of cleanup is complete, if a standalone criterion would be redundant. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 15:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*:The only reason these aren't included in R3 at the moment is the recency requirement of that criterion (which is there for good reason). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''': The outcome of these types of redirects being sent to RfD is extremely predictable and it would save everybody involved some time. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 15:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' (Invited by the bot) "Weak" because I have less expertise on this than the other respondents above. Everything has a cost (including retained redirects) and IMO folks who calculate that based on what the hard drive cost are mistaken. Also, if these are already all getting uncontroversially deleted, then IMO that refutes the argument that some need to be kept. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 19:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As in the above closed discussion, my support for this action is resumed. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>20:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support''' well thought-through proposal and supported by an apparent consensus across multiple RfDs on the topic. I don't see a large benefit to delaying the cleanup by requiring all of these go through RfD; if it's obvious just let sysops delete it and avoid the busywork and bureaucracy, that's the whole point of CSDs. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 20:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[#Dsuke|my previous comment]]. My support is primarily because of the RfD nominations, which almost always result in deletion and are an unnecessary waste of time, but secondarily because of the [[WP:UNNATURAL|unnatural]] aspect of the typos (as Utopes said above). Personally, I would be even more restrictive: for example, I'm never going to speedy a redirect that has had hundreds (or, heck, even just tens) of pageviews in the last month, but I understand that pageviews are rarely a consideration for redirects nominated at RfD, and this proposal is obviously better than nothing. [[User:Dsuke1998AEOS|Dsuke1998AEOS]] ([[User talk:Dsuke1998AEOS|talk]]) 02:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*I'd really be happier if this spelled out "non-redirect history" rather than the vague "substantial". (The only other thing it could mean - pages tagged {{tl|R with old history}} - isn't a concern; no page with a matching title is tagged with the template, and the oldest, {{!r|Road Warriors (Atlantic League)(version 2)}}, postdates modern MediaWiki and has an article in the history besides.) —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 03:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' from a maintenance perspective. Redirects need maintenance to ensure they're categorized appropriately, link to Wikidata items, etc. With the sheer amount of redirects on enwiki, it's not going to make a ''huge'' difference, but it's nice to do housekeeping. [[User:SWinxy|SWinxy]] ([[User talk:SWinxy|talk]]) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my previous comments. RfD has been constantly overwhelmed in recent days. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]])
*'''Support''': uncontroversial maintenance work supported by previous consensus. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 16:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Now that I've thought about what this would entail, I do want to add: while I support the addition of a CSD to cover these, there is ''nothing'' about the group of affected pages that signals it into the X category. Under the pretense that a CSD will be created for this, I '''oppose X3''' and '''support R5'''. There are other supporters above who also prefer something permanent, which is my lean as well, and there has not been a spot to cover how this would be categorized. R5 was the original suggestion, but was changed to X3 by HouseBlaster when starting this RfC. As a refresher on the precedent for X criterion, which has only been enacted once ever (X1/X2 occurred simultaneously), both of these affected a ''limited'' number of titles which was ''impossible to grow in scope'', due to the ''finite bounds'', and will 100% ''never be a problem again'' when the target set of titles gets dealt with. This was due to the clearly defined and permanent bounds of the X1 and X2 sets.
:X1 was created to deal with redirects meeting one criteria: "created by Neelix". After Neelix's ban, that group of 50,000 eventually ''would'' basically disappear, and cannot possibly grow in size due to the finite nature of a single banned user's page creations. X2 was a bit more nuanced, but was created to deal with faulty pages created by the content translator tool, specifically before the configuration error described at [[WP:CXT]] was fixed in 27 July 2016. This set too, would disappear in number, in part due to the full draftification of remaining pages.
:The list of redirects applicable under X3: ''"Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation"'', is totally unlike X1 and X2, in the sense that [[Foo(bar)]] can be created by anyone, at any time, for all time. Based on the hundreds of recent RfDs, there is consensus that these titles can go. There's thousands of these pages at the moment, and this mistake was equally as common 12 years ago just as it was common 2 years ago. It's because of this that the temporary aspect I don't think holds up; there needs to be a long term solution that doesn't involve hawking NPP eternally for R3 candidates. In the opening, HouseBlaster states that: ''"this is supposed to be a temporary criterion per WP:NEWCSD criterion 4, as once the "backlog" has been cleared it will be redundant to WP:R3."'' This is only the case if every single Foo(bar) title is caught within a month of creation forever, i.e. within the window where R3 applies. While many of these titles are quite old, [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/81074 this quarry] shows many (but not all) of the 100+ [[Foo(bar)]] redirects created within the last two years, the key takeaway being that "they exist" and haven't been RfD'd or R3'd yet. If we delete all the Foo(bar) titles and end up with another 100+ of these two years from now, now we're back where we started with the overflow. From my point of view, this should be a permanent CSD until the consensus is that this shouldn't be a permanent CSD any longer. These titles will always pop up and calling this X3 implies that there will never be a surplus of these ever again, which cannot be known. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 22:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::If these get created at such a rate that those which are not caught by the combination of R3 and G6 gets to a point that RfD gets overwhelmed again or it looks like it wouldn't if X3 didn't exist we can easily convert it to R5 at that time because we will have evidence that it is needed permanently. We don't have that evidence now. Although I suspect it wasn't your intent, the wording of your comment implies that the change from R5 to X3 was a unilateral decision by HouseBlaster, but it was a decision taken based on comments in the first discussion and discussion of the way forward following it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Apologies, it looks like I didn't see the other parts of the discussion where the temporary aspect was being talked about. HouseBlaster was the person saying X3 in the first RfC, whereas the other mentions were of whether or not to make a "temporary criteria" without necessarily saying "X3". It was then proposed as X3 a day before the new RfC began, with the sign-off being mainly for the proposed text and in my eyes wasn't necessarily about the X3 vs R5 decision.
:::Something that has been brought up previously is that this is redundant to R3 and G6, when this is not the case. (Side note: The last R3 deletion was 4 days ago, on [[Solar eclipse of 2024-04-28]], not super important though, just a fun thing). R3 is its own entity entirely and is completely time-sensitive for recent redirect creations. This is impossible to be a failsafe alone. Redirects will be missed, or mistakenly patrolled, and based on the sheer number of recently-created Foo(bar) pages from the last year or so that still exist untouched, they definitely escape eyes. The criteria that has ''more'' pertinence is G6, which is reserved for errors, and most of these are errors! The (unanswered) question I asked in the first RfC was whether we should go through and delete the errors right now, and see how many intentional creations remain. Who knows! Maybe we won't need to make a temporary CSD in the first place if the CSD is just going to go away once we temporarily clear the backlog. Contrarily to what you say, this is fundamentally an ''ongoing'' issue if we have [[Burek(song)]], [[Poison ivy(plant)]], and [[KP Oli Cup(cricket)]] all created days ago in Feb/March 2024, and all marked as new-page-patrolled too, preventing anyone from possibly spotting these in time to R3. These aren't even necessarily G6-able either, and if we start picking up several a month to RfD (despite overwhelming consensus being to always delete regardless of time spent at title), this backlog will never be fully cleared. Because of the continuous nature that these redirects get created, this should be R5, in my eyes. There's no evidence to suggest this is ''temporary'', as we have pages that meet this criteria from 2002 through 2024. Starting at X3 and moving to R5 is ''unprecedented'' to occupy a temporary X CSD first, and there is a need to get it right the first time to avoid occupying more CSD names than we have to. If there are titles here that are G6-able as unambiguous errors, I say let them be G6ed if they can. If it's a permanent thing, let it be permanent! I'm in support of the speedy deletion of all of these pages, but I think the idea that the Foo(bar) group is a temporary and countable problem is just not the case. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 02:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::''Everything'' is unprecedented until it's needed for the first time, that's not a reason to support or oppose anything. Everybody supporting a temporary criterion was supporting the creation of a criterion numbered X3 even if they didn't use that explicitly (temporary criteria are numbered in the X series, the next one available is 3) in the same way that everyone supporting a new permanent criterion for redirects only is supporting a criterion numbered R5 and everyone supporting a new permanent criterion for articles is supporting a criterion numbered A12, regardless of whether they use those names or not.
::::''Some'' of the titles are G6-able, some aren't, but the point is that once the backlog has been cleared the combination of R3 and G6 means that the few not eligible under either criterion will not overload RfD to the point a new criterion is needed, as best we can predict based on the data we have now. If that changes then there is no harm at all (number exhaustion is not a thing) in changing X3 to R5. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::That's a very useful query but let's not limit ourselves strictly to its output. Other redirects should also go, such as "Joe Smith(disambiguation)" mentioned in the proposal (excluded because of the space) and {{-r|10,000 Summers(No Devotion song)}}, which also has a space in the qualifier. (The database Quarry uses represents spaces as underscores.) [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 21:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' X3, although I could support a CSD for one-character typo disambiguation redirects. Temporary criteria are there to help fix issues created by specific users or specific software tools; this one has no business being temporary. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 07:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Kusma}} The point is such typos are already covered by R3 if recently created. Once a cleanup is done under X3, the ability to speedily delete longstanding typo redirects is no longer needed. -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Why would plausible typos like omission of a single space be covered by R3? These are being generated quite frequently, which shows they are not freak occurrences, but plausible typos. I can't see R3 being applicable. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''R5 as first choice, X3 as second''' per my reasoning earlier in this discussion and Utopes above. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 17:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support X3 first choice, R5 second choice''' - This is most cleanly X3. However, we should dump the quarry query onto a page somewhere, and state that X3 applies only to these redirects. This is appropriate as X3 because the backlog is disproportionate to the creation rate. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. These redirects are not useful, given that we have the correct versions, and simply clutter search results and the database. {{tl|Database report}} is good at dumping quarry queries onto a page. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 21:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as there are so many correct redirects without a space before (. It would lead to too many erroneous deletions. More care and consideration is required than a speedy delete. R3 can be used if creation is recent. Suppress redirect on move policy would also need to match. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Not specific to you, but I see a ''lot'' of discussions on this page (to borrow my earlier wording) act as if in this area admins are also total rubes. Admins are by definition experienced enough to distinguish obvious errors in Wikipedia disambiguators, even unfamiliar ones, from idiosyncratic spelling conventions such as chemical nomenclature or artwork titles. As an example, even someone unacquainted with chemistry can click the redirect [[Fe(III) oxide]] and, within two paragraphs, see ample evidence that it's part of a nomenclature. By contrast, if someone were to somehow create [[Isaac Brock(longevity claimant)]], no one experienced enough to be an admin would think that the disambiguator (longevity claimant) is unique among disambiguators in lacking spaces; even without its existence, if you get as far as typing in "Isaac Brock(" you'll see the result you're looking for in the dropdown search results. And on top of that, if there's a mistake it's also entirely reversible. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 04:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*::This is all well and good so long as the admin bothers to read the page title and comprehend what they are doing before pressing delete. Doesn't sound especially difficult of course, but CSD definitely attracts the type who are intent on speed over anything else. '''[[User:J947|<span style="color: #1009bf;">J</span>]][[User talk:J947|<span style="color: #137412;">947</span>]]''' ‡ <sup>[[Special:Contribs/J947|edits]]</sup> 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''R5 as first choice, X3 as second'''. There are ways to handle some of the false positives, including using {{tl|R from chemical formula}} on chemistry redirects. The fact is that there are just a very large amount of these and this ongoing clean up has been going on for years. Even using twinkle to send to RfD is time consuming as some editors want these grouped up (which is understandable), but the template at RfD is expanded (for whatever reason) so it isn't a smooth and easy copy/paste. Then we also come into a problem of batch nominations where time and time again it has proven that editors just don't like these and these fail for no other reason other than that. So we end up with clean up editors needing to decide each time what amount is the correct amount to batch up... which is just a waste of time. To the above concern about admins not doing their job correctly. If the that happens, the problem isn't with this but with the admin themselves and the proper channels should handle that. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 08:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I [[Special:Diff/745009118|originated]] (and have expanded as necessary over time as more examples arise) the content contained at [[WP:RDAB]]. I did so because it is easier to reference the sentiment expressed there with a quick shortcut rather than repeating myself over and over again at redirects for discussion. However, on similar grounds, I ''oppose'' this as a temporary remedy because such redirect archetypes arise and populate the venue so often. I am also ''unsure'' if I would support such a criterion if it were proposed as permanent. I would have to put a lot more thought into the matter than I have at the moment. <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 09:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{reply to|Steel1943}} A partial answer to your question posed much above (i.e "does ''anybody'' recall why the texts at WP:UNNATURAL and WP:RDAB were written?") is contained in my comment right above this. Let me know if elaborating further on any particular point would be of help. <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 09:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' There seems to be agreement that these should be deleted at RfD, and that is what ultimately controls. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per [[WP:NOTBURO|NOTBURO]]; this solely enforces a longstanding consensus, even if I disagree with the longstanding consensus. First hand experience, this is also putting a huge burden on RfD. [[User:Queen of Hearts|Queen of Hearts]] <sup>she</sup>/<sub>they</sub><sup>[[User talk:Queen of Hearts|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Queen of Hearts|stalk]]</sub> 20:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:NOTBURO]], I have no opinion on the underlying arguments, but if there is general consensus that a) these redirects are not needed and b) going through all of them at RfD manually will take a huge amount of time, there is no real reason to not do this. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support without bullet points''' -- this is a good proposed CSD, but needs to be made as simple as possible, and there should be no requirement for a CSD editor to subsequently go through and do additional cleanup of links, or create new pages. The whole point of CSDs are that they should be *speedy*. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' they always get deleted so let's speed it up. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support R5, weak support X3'''. Fine, let's just get this done. (I've already commented a few times in this discussion, so I've already elaborated my stance.) [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 14:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support R5''' There is no reason for this rule to be temporary, although we do need manual check for false-positive matches such as {{nowrap|[[Iron(II)]] → [[Ferrous]]}}. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' don't care whether temp or perm. Yes, there could be false positives, but I assume editors are smart enough to make the right judgements. [[User:Toadspike|<span style="font-family:'Rubik', sans-serif; color:#21a81e; text-shadow:#999b9e 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Toadspike|talk]]) 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as such redirects are often implausible and unlikely a search term. R5 would be suitabile for this; it is unlikely for people to type titles without space between the ambiguous term and the disambiguator. [[User:ToadetteEdit|<span style="color:#fc65b8;">'''Toadette'''</span>]] <sup>''([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|<span style="color:blue;">Let's talk together!</span>]])''</sup> 10:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*<small>Comment to prevent archiving before this is closed. It's been listed at [[WP:ANRFC]] since 30 March. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)</small>
{{crb}}


===Modified Proposal: Add Wikipedia Namespace Drafts to G13===
Per the previous discussion we should add point '''"4. Article drafts in Wikipedia namespace"''' to cover misplaced drafts or drafts hosted under wikiprojects. Draft namespace was designed to host Wikiproject drafts for collabertive editing and was initially populated with drafts from a wikiproject. The same reasons for G13 apply to other versions of draftspace under a wikiproject now. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 20:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - if an article draft is misplaced in the Wikipedia namespace, or other namespaces, the accepted treatment is to move it to Draft: space. Then G13 applies as normal. This extra proposal is unnecessary. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
:Misplaced drafts can easily be moved to Main or Draft space for further use as appropriate. Multiple pages such as the one mentioned above can be handled by a one-time consensus at MFD. I don't see a real need to expand the scope of G13. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 20:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for lack of need per SoWhy and Ivanvector. This also does not address most of the reasons for opposition to the original proposal and actually might make some worse. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Header|New Criteria criterion #3]], no frequent need. Also, I can very easily imagine this broad scope criterion being misused to delete things that should not be deleted. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] is wrong to state "Draft namespace was designed to host Wikiproject drafts for collabertive editing and was initially populated with drafts from a wikiproject". That was true ONLY for one specific WikiProject, being [[WP:AfC]], which was inviting hoards of newcomers to create WikiProject subpages. These newcomers were not WikiProject members. This is a big distinction. Pages properly organised in WikiProjects, by their WikiProject members, should not be subject to unwanted cleanup by deletion by non-members. [[WP:PERFORMANCE]] issues excepted. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


===Post-RFC===
{{Archive bottom}}
Just noting that I have created {{t|db-x3}} and [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation]], and updated [[MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown]] and [[CAT:CSD]] to match. I ''think'' that's everything that needs doing, but please feel free to fix whatever else needs it. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:Twinkle update [[Special:Diff/1221882621|requested]] by Gonnym (thanks!). [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::Before we start deleting, can we ''please'' just have a discussion about whether to implement this as X3 or R5? Because there is functionally no reason to have this be X3, as there is nothing inherently temporary about this issue. Nobody has identified which of the relevant titles are ''already'' speedy delete-able, and how many of the leftover redirects are ''actually'' affected by this; any number is just guesses and estimates, a STARK contrast to the systematic and temporary nature of X CSDs. There has been significant pushback to the bullet points, of which none of the support !voters have clarified any reason for keeping them (as an aside to "these pages should be deleted", of which I agree they should be). I appreciate the gusto of the non-admin closure but basically all of the significant issues are currently unaddressed, which ''need'' solutions before proceeding, in my opinion. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 01:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::The wording of the close leaves the option of converting this to R5 in the future, which mostly addresses the concerns that it will only ''need'' to be temporary: I have a funny feeling that this process will take a while, and if in the meantime there is demonstrable evidence that redirects are still being created in this manner and ''not'' being handled under the existing R3 it will make that much more of a compelling case to make X3 a permanent R.
:::Personally speaking, I would have made the bullet points optional (adding in a "should") to address the concerns of those against them, but on the whole I suspect that folks looking for and dealing with X3 will already be motivated (since they wanted it in the first place) to take care of the "paperwork" when filing that this issue with the bullet points will end up being a non-issue. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 05:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't understand why you think the X3/R5 option is urgent? Any, as was explained multiple times in the discussion, there is no evidence available that this needs to be permanent - if that changes then we will have evidence to support making it a permanent criterion. As for the bullet points - changing links is necessary to prevent harming the encyclopaedia, creating new redirects where the search term is plausible but a mistake was made in missing a space benefits readers (who are always the most important). These are things that should be done prior to many speedy deletions already and nobody has articulated any good reason why they're a bad idea (being allowed to nominate something for speedy deletion without making sure you aren't breaking something is not a good reason). If you do think the requirements are too onerous then that's fine, you can simply not nominate any pages under this criterion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*What about similar errors like [[Foo (disambiguation]] and [[Foo disambiguation)]], while the proposal was only for missing spaces I think we should consider other errors. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*:Those would need to be a separate proposal to be speedily deletable. There have been arguments made that "Foo (disambiguation" redirects can be helpful in certain circumstances and so aren't uncontroversial. I don't recall ever seeing a "Foo disambiguation)" redirect come to RfD so it would almost certainly fail the frequency requirement. Almost every other type of error is rare, already covered by R3 and/or G6, and/or not uncontroversial. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


== Time to get rid of A2? ==
== New F Crtiera - Unused/unusable explicit image. ==


Pretty much the title. For one, it is not [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/80956 used frequently] (the last 100 entries take us back to November 2021). But more importantly, I don't think deletion is actually beneficial. The criterion itself calls for tagging with {{t|Not English}} (if it does not exist on a different language Wikipedia), and I would add that draftification is a good option as well. Given those two [[WP:ATD|alternatives to deletion]]—[[WP:ATD-T]] and [[WP:ATD-I]]—exist, I am not sure we should have this CSD (c.f. [[WP:PRESERVE]]). Is there anything I am missing/other thoughts? <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 03:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a porn host. Therefore I am asking if there should be a CSD that allows users and admins to 'speedy' delete explicit image that are unused, or which cannot be used within the context of encyclopaedia. This would in effect make the NOPENIS policy used on Commons a grounds for speedy deletion of the same kind of media on English Wikipedia.
:Nowadays most of these creations are in Draft space, so that is where they get knocked back. If there is a chance that the content is useful to another project or could be translated, then draftifying could be good. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 21:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::Presumably, the justification for draftifying new non-English articles is [[Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review]] #2a-iii, that the article meets some speedy deletion criterion, namely A2? So in order to continue justifying these draftifications it would be appropriate to add non-English to the list of reasons why a page might be obviously unready for mainspace, releasing A2 from its role there. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
===RfC: deprecating A2===


{{Archive top
The amount of existing media that would be affected is hoped to be tiny. [[User:ShakespeareFan00|ShakespeareFan00]] ([[User talk:ShakespeareFan00|talk]]) 16:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
|status = NO CHANGE
|result = There is consensus against deprecating A2 as a CSD. Alternate suggestions for various changes also failed to gain consensus. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1712973672}}
Should A2 (Foreign-language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project) be deprecated as a CSD? 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. A2 is [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/80956 rarely used], and thus fails NEWCSD3. The last 100 entries on that query take us back to November 2021, and when you ignore false positives my rough count takes us back to February 2021. Assuming all of the articles which qualify for A2 need to be deleted, AfD can handle an additional ~0.14 articles a day. But more importantly, I don't think deletion is needed in this case. Incubation and tagging for translation is a viable [[WP:ATD]], and per ATD {{tq|If editing can address all relevant [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion|reasons for deletion]], this should be done rather than deleting the page}}. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Template:Centralized discussion]]. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 01:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
*'''Oppose'''. Foreign language articles pasted into English Wikipedia without any translation are low effort on the part of the article creator and not a good use of editor time. The status quo of deleting these seems fine here. Also, the idea of sending more articles to AFD is not exactly a selling point, as it is often mentioned that AFD is backlogged and does not have enough regular !voters. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 02:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*NEWCSD is not the threshold to repeal a criterion, unless you'd like to make a play at A7 and G11 - when we've removed criteria before, it was because essentially all uses of them were incorrect. And oppose on the merits too: these aren't enwiki articles, they're ''requests'' for enwiki articles, without even the possibility of moving them to the proper project (where, in my experience, they're either ignored forever or deleted outright anyway). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 02:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It may not be used much directly, but my comment above that it is still needed to justify draftication appears to remain unaddressed by the nominator. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 02:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I would be happy to note in the proposal that it would be deprecated in favor of draftifying. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 16:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*::You miss the point. To draftify an article requires a rationale. The current rationale for draftifying non-English articles invokes A2. Removing A2 also removes this rationale from draftification, preventing in-process draftification of non-English articles. If you want to continue draftifying non-English articles, leave A2 in place and it will just work. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::“Wanted topic but not in English” sounds like a good draftification rationale. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Strong support''' per every point by the proposer. Eligible cases are required to have a corresponding article on another language Wikipedia. This is an implicit claim that the topic is missing from the English Wikipedia. Draftification for translation is an obvious better route. Far less [[WP:BITE]]Y is one big reason. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' per proposer and especially SmokeyJoe. This criteria long predates draftspace, and the wiki has also changed in other ways in the past 15 or so years.</s> Additionally, every criterion ''should'' be compatible with NEWCSD. Yes there are some that have been grandfathered in, but that doesn't mean they would be good criteria if proposed today or that we shouldn't periodically review existing criteria to see if they are still fit for purpose (this is why R4 and G14 exist as separate criteria). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
**'''Oppose''' at least for now. [[user:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] makes good points in the Discussion section below about needing to consider this in concert with pages needing translation, and others' comments about how this interacts with criteria for draftification are also valid. This isn't an endorsement of the status quo, rather I think we need to take a comprehensive look at how we want to handle non-English submissions in 2024 and then make necessary changes to all the affected policies and guidelines to match that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Cryptic. Just copying some content doesn't mean one would necessarily work on translating it. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Sounds like the purpose of draftspace! [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*::That takes six more months of lying around, which irks me >:(. If someone wants to actually work on something, IMO they'd translate the text and put it there one by one instead of just copying something, or, even better, use the content translation tool. I don't see the value of keeping stuff that would be deleted under A2. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 23:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::You think six months is too long a deadline?
*:::There is no cost to putting the foreign language submission in draftspace. I think there is value in giving the author one week to follow up. And once it’s been one week, why not ignore it for six months. The cost of complicating G13 is more than the cost of leaving untouched in draftspace for six months.
*:::Many editors are not very good with their first edit. Here, it is necessarily an autoconfirmed editor, but still, fresh autoconfirmed editors are not always very good. Do you think Wikipedia needs a higher barrier for competence before they are allowed to create a mainspace page?
*:::The value of draftification is in pointing out to the newcomer where draftspace is, and allowing them to continue their intended contribution. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't see how deleting a copied page produces a higher barrier to contribution. My interpretation of A2 is that it only applies if the article's entirely foreign language but nothing else. If there is something else to salvage, A2 wouldn't apply, and the article can still be draftified. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 13:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. In 2024, there are sufficient tools available to assess whether a foreign-language page is worthy of translation (then it can be draftified) or not (then the other criteria apply). A2 seems to do more harm than good if we delete articles solely based on whether they are not in English and not on their merits. For example, [[Karl Friedrich Wunder]] which was deleted as A2 in January was a copy of [[:de:Karl Friedrich Wunder]] (a notable 19th century photographer) was eligible for deletion under G12 since copying another language Wikipedia article is also a violation of copyright. [[Saturnino de la Torre]] was a wrong A2 since it didn't exist on es-wiki at that time but was probably eligible for G11 like the es-wiki counterpart. Point is, I don't think there is really much need anymore for A2 because in most cases the material either already fails another criterion or it's translation-worthy. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 18:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' when I first looked and read this discussion or at last the 1st points I was going to support. However having read the rest and thought a bit more about it I think this criteria is good. Objective, most people are likely to agree foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project should be deleted as no content is actually lost as the content and history will still be on the foreign language project. Uncontestable, again this is a bit like A10 and arguably for the same reason as splitting G14 from G6 it might not be a good idea to merge or if this criteria is removed I'd expect people to use G6 anyway. Unlike T2 its quite simple so which as noted in the discussion to repeal T2 that the criteria is not easy to understand unlike this one. Frequent, yes it doesn't appear to be extremely frequent but with around 1 use per week that seems frequent enough given as noted in the U3 discussion neither A9 nor A11 appeared in around 32 hours of deletion. So I think this passes the 1st and 2nd NEWCSD and given the reasons for splitting G14 I'd argue along that logic it passes the 4th item and in terms of the 3rd though not very frequent seems frequent enough. I'd agree the articles can be drafted upon request but it seems a bit pointless given the article will still exist on the other project so if the author wants to start translating they can still use that page to get the content from. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:“Uncontestable”, that the wanted topic but not written in English needs to be deleted? That sounds weak. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Its not the topic its the content, having a foreign language article with the same content as the native language on the English Wikipedia is completely pointless. Its quite likely that if the topic exists on a foreign language Wikipedia it will be notable here but as noted we don't need to duplicate foreign language content here just like we don't need 2 articles on the same topic on the English Wikipedia. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 20:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' still a completely valid deletion criteria. Not being used much doesn't mean it doesn't have its place in the toolbox, and each Wikipedia has different notability standards. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*Well. A2 exists to enforce [[WP:MACHINE]] so we shouldn't ''repeal'' A2 without modifying WP:MACHINE, but. I think the ideal process is, reviewing editor looks at article in %language on en.wiki and compares it to the same article on %language.wiki. Reviewing editor isn't necessarily expected to be able to ''read'' %language, but makes a quick eyeball assessment: does the version on en.wiki look reasonably developed and substantially different? If not, tag for A2. If so, reviewing editor tags the en.wiki version with {{tl|Not English}} and then drops a note on %language.wikipedia.org/Talk:%Article to ask if they want it. (Reviewing editor is likely going to have to use google translate to make an intelligible note in %language, but that ought to be acceptable for talk pages). %language.wiki then has access to the old text which they can use to develop their article if appropriate, and en.wiki doesn't have foreign-language content in mainspace. Happy days. I do feel that this process is a useful way round a 7 day community timesink at AfD, but I also think it needs better documentation than currently exists.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:A2 predates MACHINE.
*:If A2 requires human review, it should be PROD not CSD. I think immediate draftification is much better than PROD for a new non-English article. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Thank you for sending me on that nostalgic trip into Wikipedia history. :) I don't think it's strictly accurate to say that A2 predates MACHINE. The text now at [[WP:MACHINE]] has moved around a lot, and was, originally, phrased as:{{tq2|Translation is hard. Amateur translators tend to produce prose that is unnatural, and perhaps incorrect when it comes to specialized terminology....Machine translation is much much worse. Never use machine translation to create an article!}} I've traced that text back to the first revision of [[Wikipedia:Translations]], on 11 May 2003. According to the edit summary that text was moved from the Village Pump and considering the date, I expect that would have been a cut-and-paste move. The paste includes undated text by [[User:MyRedDice]], who is now [[User:MartinHarper]] and was incidentally the inventor of the Three Revert Rule and the Barnstar, saying "We do indeed recommend against machine translation". In other words, the gist of WP:MACHINE has been custom and practice since at least May 2003.{{pb}}Well, at that point in time, what's now the Criteria for Speedy Deletion read like [[Special:Permalink/1674639|this]] and the criteria for speedy deletion were collectively called "exemptions from the five-day rule" (which I think at that time was the minimum possible time a page had to be listed on Votes for Deletion before anyone was allowed to delete it).{{pb}}I'm saying that both rules go back to Wikipedia's equivalent of [[time immemorial]].{{pb}}All CSD "require human review" because it's a human that adds the tags. We expect those humans have read, understood what they were reading, reflected if necessary, and then taken a decision to use CSD. Something should be a PROD when it needs ''two'' humans to review it. Therefore A2 is appropriate for CSD, not PROD.{{pb}}Why would draftification be a helpful step? Content doesn't meet A2 unless it duplicates content on another WMF project, so I can't see any benefit to using draft space in that way.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::All CSD require human review? Great in theory. Tagging if often done in error. Any editor or IP can tag {{tl|Db-a2}}. And then, there’s plenty of not so old evidence of some admins would delete tagged pages en-mass, at high speed. This is why there is supposed to be the rule, all eligible pages ''should'' be deleted.
*:::Would draftification be helpful? Yes, it would be helpful to the editor who saved the article there. They should have saved it in draftspace. Moving it to draftspace necessarily means that the article log will point to the draftpage. Then, when that editor comes back, they can find the draft, both from the deletion log of the article title, and in their contribution history. This is more helpful to them than coming back to find a log entry mentions A2, and no record that they ever did anyhthing. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
*'''Oppose''', solution looking for a problem. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Change to speedy draftification''': As stated by editors in this discussion and above, deletion might be a bit too harsh, and these are requests for articles to be created on English Wikipedia. Speedy draftification might be the best way to allow for these articles to be developed for enwiki. Failing that, '''repeal'''. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 13:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per David Epstein, Cryptic, and S Marshall. Translation tools are not yet 'sufficient'. Moreover, one should not potentially use the mainspace in an attempt to tip the scales towards the translation or scrutiny of viability of one topic over any other. Just because a criterion exists does not mean the deletion of such a page is a certain; incubation is still an option if a page is deemed worthy of retention by those reviewing it. At the end of the day, non-English content is likely of little use to most of our readers; eliminating a longstanding tool to easily and quickly remedy that is not a good idea. <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 08:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As long as it is being used to delete pages that are of no use to us, we should not be repealing criteria solely because they are not used very often. Having this criteria discourages users from other language Wikipedias from copying their articles onto here without properly translating, resulting in a page that needs a fundamental rewrite. [[User:Funplussmart|funplussmart]] ([[User talk:Funplussmart|talk]]) 20:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''; not broken, the last thing AfD needs is more burden. [[User:Queen of Hearts|Queen of Hearts]] <sup>she</sup>/<sub>they</sub><sup>[[User talk:Queen of Hearts|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Queen of Hearts|stalk]]</sub> 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion of A2 RFC===
: It'll need some refinement on what is considered unusable and for why, but it's a sensible proposal. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 16:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [[WP:Pages needing translation into English]] should be taken into account. Should this RFC be closed and redrafted to consider both together? Under the terms of [[WP:PNT]], an article created in a language other than English that ''doesn't'' qualify for A2 (or any other reason for deletion) gets a grace period of two weeks. If translation isn't at least underway by then, the article gets put up for deletion under [[WP:PROD]] or [[WP:AFD]]. It doesn't make sense to give non-English articles treatment that's disparate in this manner, one month to live if they aren't on another language's Wikipedia and six months to live if they are.
:Unusable explicit images (or those uploaded and then used for shock value) are covered by [[WP:CSD#G3]] vandalism already. How common are cases not covered by G3? —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 17:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:Having said that, draftification really has changed the game, as most of the otherwise legitimate articles listed on [[WP:PNT]], by the time I see them, are red links because someone's response was to draftify them. So if this RFC comes out in favor of draftification as a blanket treatment when a non-English article is on another Wikipedia, then it will make just as much sense to make draftification that standard treatment for ''all'' non-English articles, and eliminate [[WP:PNT]]'s role in that situation. [[WP:PNT]] would still be of use for cases for which it's used today, where someone has added a chunk of potentially useful non-English material to an article already in English. And it would retain its role as the place to post requests for fixing articles that ''have'' been translated to English.
:{{tq|The amount of existing media that would be affected is hoped to be tiny.}} See item #3 in the banner above about proposing new criteria. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:If this change in guidance were to be made, however, it would definitely be time to rename [[WP:PNT]] (which should long ago have been renamed [[WP:Articles needing translation to English]], since non-articles, including drafts, aren't handled there) to something else, since coverage of "Pages needing translation" would no longer be its role at all.
:Alternatively, we could simply allow the drafts to be listed at [[WP:PNT]]. And remove the two-week grace period. Let all entries remain posted until either translated or G13ed.
:Due to all these considerations, I think A2 and [[WP:PNT]] should be considered holistically. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::I may be wrong (I haven't done a lot of work at [[WP:PNT]] for at least a decade now) but I don't think any articles have actually been given the two weeks grace for a few years now. Most articles either get deleted as copyvios or A2 or moved to draft space well before the two weeks have expired. Ping @[[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] who might be able to correct me. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 12:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I can only speak for myself here, but I will respect the 2 weeks grace for prodded articles. As for the case of [[Saturnino de la Torre]] which I deleted as an A2 because it had once existed on Spanish Wikipedia: I actually interpret A2 a bit more widely here: for me it's enough that an article has once existed in another Wikipedia; requirements for an article here are more strict regarding sources and notability in compariosn to most other Wikipedias....so if something is deleted at, e.g., Spanish Wikipedia, rare would be the case that it would stand as an article here. And yes, probably it would have been eligible as a G11, but that would mean the article would have to be translated first, or the prospective deleting admin is able to read and understand enough Spanish to be able to process it without translation...this would rather cut down the number of admins who could delete. On another point, ''G'' speedy deletion criteria are "general" ones, while ''A'' deletions are restricted to article space. When I have a choice, I will use the specialized criterion over the general one. Lastly, allowing drafts at [[WP:PNT]] will inflate the workload over there even more. It's bloated enough as it is. But I would support a move to [[WP:Articles needing translation to English]]. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::::It is not PNTers who do not respect the two weeks (I realise I have not been clear in what I wrote); what happens most of the time is that pages get listed at PNT and then are dealt with by other people using other mechanisms (draftified/speedied) so PNTers just have to remove the redlinked entries. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 13:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::That is correct. [[WP:PNT]] used to be fun, I actually got to do some translation, now it's just remove the red links and maybe the date header. On the other hand, if we were to start accepting drafts there, then I'd have my pointers to potential translation fodder back, in cases where the language is the ''only'' reason the article was draftified. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 21:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
* To look at some real cases, would someone please temp undelete and list the last twenty A2 deletions? -[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Undeleting into mainspace would be pretty bad. I'd say somebody just copy the contents and put them in userspace. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 14:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== RFC new R5 ==
: "Unusable" is subjective so can be dropped if that would make the proposal more acceptable....


<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 19:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715454067}}
To me unusable images would be (non-exclusive criteria) :
Should there be a new R5 criteria for incorrectly formatted redirects to DAB pages? {{tq|Redirects to disambiguation pages with malformities qualifiers such as [[Foo (desambiguation)]], [[Foo (DISAMBIGUATION)]] and [[Foo (Disambiguation)]], this excludes redirect using the correct [[WP:INTDAB]] title namely [[Foo (disambiguation)]] or any title that has useful history. Redirects with incorrect qualifiers that don't target disambiguation pages can be deleted under G14.}} '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* Images that lack full sourcing, authorship or attribution as to where the media was obtained from, and who the creators were.
*'''Support''' as proposer and the discussions at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26#London (Disambiguation)]] and [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages]] these redirects are a nuisance to editors trying to fix disambiguation errors and search takes readers to the correct title if deleted anyway. I would be open to moving the redirects to pages ending in the (correctly formatted) "(disambiguation)" that point to pages that aren't DAB pages here if people think that's a good idea. 1 objective, most agree they should be deleted though a significant minority disagree as is sometimes the case with other criteria, 2, uncontestable, per the 2 linked discussions there is a consensus that they should be deleted, 3, frequent, although not extremely frequent they are frequent enough IMO, 4, nonredundant, these may be able to be deleted under R3 or G6 as it was argued in the 2022 discussion but given the discussion it would be clearer to have a separate criteria. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 19:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* Those that are of low technical quality, (out of focus, JPEG artifacts, badly lit) such that whats displayed isn't clear in relation to any provided context.
*Pinging people from the 2 linked RFDs {{Ping|Nickps|Certes|Thryduulf|Steel1943|PamD|InterstellarGamer12321|Utopes|Cremastra|Shhhnotsoloud|CycloneYoris|Explicit|Hqb|Sonic678|Neo-Jay|Station1|Axem Titanium|Mellohi!|Chris j wood|CX Zoom|Mx. Granger|The Banner|MB|Paradoctor|J947|Tavix|A7V2|Uanfala|Eviolite|BDD|BD2412|Compassionate727|Respublik|Legoktm}}. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 19:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* Images that cannot legally be displayed or shared with respect to US law (with consideration being given to the equivalent laws in other jurisdictions, such as those of the uploader)
*'''Support'''. These shoot basically be deleted on sight. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose alternative capitalization of first letter being included''' – These are not harmful and Wikipedia is not improved with their deletion. It's entirely predictable that someone would miscapitalize a disambiguator. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As the only non-article pages in mainspace, disambiguation pages and redirects are each special and somewhat obscure from a reader viewpoint, and redirects to disambiguation pages are doubly so. The correct versions of these redirects are a technical measure to assist editors and the automated tools they use. The incorrect versions, including capitalised variants, serve no purpose and help no one. Shoot on sight. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 19:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Entirely unhelpful to keep these around. Might as well keep any and every misspelling as entirely predictable that someone at some point will make such an error. Better to make it clear that it is an error than to let an editor think they have created a correct wiki link. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' deleting "(<u>D</u>isambiguation)" redirects if they redirect to a disambiguation page-someone might miscapitalize the D (like in the case of holding the {{key|Shift}} key for too long), and while it may not necessarily be helpful, it's not harmful either. '''Support''' deleting those with misspelled "disambiguations" and those that have "disambiguation" yet don't have appropriate disambiguation pages that exist-those ones are search bar clutter and might annoy or mislead people respectively. '''Neutral (tilting support)''' on deleting the "(DISAMBIGUATION)" ones though-this error (e.g., holding the {{key|Caps Lock}} key) does happen, but not very often. Those ''may'' help some people, but they're mostly an annoyance, so Wikipedia may be safe without the fully capitalized disambiguators. Regards, [[User:Sonic678|<span style="font-family:Racing Sans One; color:#0F45D2">SONIC</span>]][[User talk:Sonic678|<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; font-size:83%; color:#D4AF37">678</span>]] 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tpq|those that have "disambiguation" yet don't have appropriate disambiguation pages that exist}} Redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" (with any capitalisation) that don't point to a disambiguation page and cannot be retargetted to an appropriate disambiguation page are already covered by R4. Those that don't end that way need discussion to determine what, if anything, the best target is. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. These are harmful because linking to them from anywhere except their RfD nomination is ''always'' a mistake per [[WP:INTDAB]]. They should all be red links so its immediately obvious to the editor that tries to add them. In fact, this is precisely why we should delete "(Disambiguation)" redirects since those are the most likely ones to make editors trip up. The very few editors that hold down Shift for too long while searching for disambiguation pages (I'm guessing people don't search for dab pages too often in general so imagine how rare those mistakes are) will be taken care of by search anyway. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 20:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*:By that logic we shoudn't have any redirects pointed to dab pages. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::No, that doesn't follow from my comment. What I said only applies to the redirects included in the CSD proposal. Linking to e.g. [[doing]] instead of <nowiki>[[do (disambiguation)|doing]]</nowiki> is wrong but the redirect should still be kept since it's useful for searching. [[Do (Disambiguation)]] is not useful because it's an implausible search term and anyone who nevertheless searches it today ends up in the correct page yet it looks close enough to the correct version that an unsuspecting editor might think it's fine per [[WP:INTDAB]] even though it's not. Keeping it would provide no benefit to the readers <del>but would cause problems to the editors</del> <ins>and the problem it would cause to the editors outweighs any potential benefits</ins>. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)<ins>;edited: 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)</ins>
*:::I guess I just really disagree that it's an implausible search term to have the alternative capitalization. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 14:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::Well, who types "(disambiguation)" in the first place? Almost all (if not all) our readers would type the name of the thing they are looking for and click the hatnote. I'm guessing (but I admittedly don't know for sure) that a lot of editors do the same. So, when even the correct capitalization is implausible, imagine what the incorrect one is. And again, for the very few people who do type the whole thing instead of clicking on the correct suggestion, and the very few times they get it wrong, search will find the right page anyway. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 14:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Some people do search directly for disambiguation pages, e.g. when they are looking for a list of things called X, or when they know or suspect that the X they are looking for is not the primary topic but don't know what the article is called. As far as I am aware, it is not possible to know how many people "some" is, other than it's greater than zero.
*:::::Regarding the capitalisation, everywhere outside of disambiguators there is a very strong consensus that redirects from plausible alternative capitalisations (such as Title Case) are a Good Thing. I've never seen any remotely convincing evidence for why disamiguators are different. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
* [[File:Wikipedia search box screenshot for use in en.Wikipedia talk-Criteria for speedy deletion-RFC new R5.png|right]] '''Support''' Nothing has changed since the RFCs. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) <ins>; added image 21:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)</ins>
*:As pointed out every time search suggestions (the image) are brought up at RFD, this is only true for a subset of ways people navigate Wikipedia. Users, including but not limited to those following links, entering the URI directly, or using some third-party search methods will not end up at a page that doesn't match the capitalisation of their search directly. What happens then depends on a combination of multiple factors, but some will be one click/tap away from the page they want others will be up to at least three clicks/taps away. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Maybe you find it so frustrating because others don't find your argument convincing? This may be a case of touring the sticks.
*::{{tq|third-party search}} Just for kicks, I tried a few external search engines with the query "London (Disambiguation)". Unsurprisingly, all of them returned [[London (disambiguation)]] as their first hit. If you go through the search API, you go directly there. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 00:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::You not being convinced doesn't mean others weren't, so please don't act like they're silly for saying their peace. Thryduulf's argument in a previous RfD actually made me reconsider my view and realize how silly I was for supporting the deletion of alternative capitalizations of disambiguators. As if editors would never accidentally or mistakenly capitalize one, eh? As if these capitalizations are somehow detrimental and damaging, or unhelpful. I think what's silly is to act like they're saying something ludicrous. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|like they're silly for saying their piece}} Please [[WP:FOC|don't put words in my mouth]]. Thryduulf complained in their edit summary about not getting through to others with their argument. I suggested that they might not have given enough consideration to changing their approach, which hasn't worked. It's one of my more hard-earned lessons from contributing in this place that being Right™ and being agreed to are different things. As Lonestone put it, doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result is not ''[[wikt:zielführend|zielführend]]''. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::There is a difference between not being convinced by an argument and pretending that argument does not exist. It's fine to think that disadvantaging a proportion of readers is OK, what is not fine is claiming that nobody will be disadvantaged. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Again, words are being put in my mouth. {{em|Where}} did I say that "nobody will be disadvantaged"? Maybe you were thinking of somebody else? Maybe I should now complain about not being understood? <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 07:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Saying "nobody will be disadvantaged" is implicit in your posting of the image directly above when it has been explained, multiple times, why arguments relating to search suggestions are incorrect and/or misleading (depending how they're phrased). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::No, that is you reading stuff into my words. All I did was let some air out of your argument. You don't have to like it, but don't misrepresent my words. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::You let no air out of my argument, because my argument has always explicitly acknowledged that search suggestions exist and help some people but because they do not help everybody they are not evidence the redirect is unnecessary. Pointing out that search suggestions exist adds nothing to that at all. Pointing out search suggestions exist in combination with an argument that says such redirects are unnecessary is misleading. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::It is [[WP:SATISFY|not my job to convince you]]. {{tq|It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.}}
*::::::::::That I have not rebutted your every point is because I don't deem it necessary. I've argued to the point where I let the process do the rest. It may not satisfy you, but it does {{em|not}} give you licence to impugn my words as misleading. That is inappropriate. You believe you're right? Fine. Then wait for the close. Or talk to someone else. The only thing you can achieve here is badgering me. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I'm not asking you to convince me, or to agree with me. I'm asking you to acknowledge the existence of arguments that refute yours rather than pretend they don't exist. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Again for the hard of hearing: [[WP:BADGER]] {{tq|The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not [...] mean that others are obligated to {{em|answer}}}} (added emphasis) <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 21:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Depending on the search method of I use, you're 100% correct. The lack of the alternative capitalization has been a hindrance at times. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 03:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' "Disambiguation" redirects per my arguments at the linked RfDs. These are useful redirects and deletion harms the encyclopaedia, speedy deletion would be even more harmful. Almost all implausible misspellings of "disambiguation" can be speedy deleted under G6 and/or R3 already, I've not seen any evidence there are enough that can't to justify speedy deletion. ''Plausible'' misspellings should be kept like any other plausible misspelling redirect. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Thryduulf. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' As far as I know, obvious and unlikely names can already be speedy deleted. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 22:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*:When a case which R5 would cover goes to RfD, some editors say that it should have been deleted speedily but others oppose the deletion. I'm not sure whether those who oppose disagree that the case is obvious and unlikely, or that CSD includes obvious and unlikely redirects. Either way, it seems that we need to clarify the consensus on this matter. However, if another CSD criterion already covers this case, please suggest a clarification to it rather than creating R5. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 22:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*::CSD is explicitly only for the most obvious cases. If there is disagreement about whether it should be deleted at all then it's not suitable for speedy deletion. The cases where there is agreement are already unambiguously covered by existing, uncontroversial criteria (G6*, R3 and R4). <small>*G6 isn't completely uncontroversial, but the "unambiguously created in error" part that is relevant here is not controversial)</small> [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::There is clearly disagreement about whether R5 should become a CSD. Does that make it not a CSD? Is unanimity required for this sort of change, or just consensus? [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::It needs to be uncontroversial that every page which ''could'' be deleted according to criterion ''should'' be deleted. When the discussions show substantial disagreement then it is clearly controversial. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::If an editor states that alternative capitalizations should have been speedy deleted then they're wrong. They do not qualify under the existing R3 and G6 rationale, as I've explained to Crouch when they've CSD tagged alternative capitalizations in the past. They're possible search terms, which makes them ineligible for R3, and frankly I'd love to see AnomieBot or something regularly create the alternative capitalizations, similar to how it does with hyphens and en dashes. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 03:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::I hope there is no way that systematically cluttering the namespace with more erroneous redirects would gain consensus. Where do we stop? Do we also create 356,000 redirects for each plausible misspelling of "disambiguation"? How about duplicating every qualified article title by creating redirects from miscapitalisation Foo (Film), Foo (Footballer), etc.? [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 08:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::Sure, why not? It doesn't make Wikipedia worse. They're possibly search terms. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 14:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I don't want to bludgeon the discussion, so I'll back off after this. But can anybody give me one example of how pages with an alternative capitalization on the disambiguator are a net negative and worth spending our time on fighting against? Those are typically piped anyways, so people wouldn't typically notice anyways. I'm always open to changing my mind and view, but over the last year where I've been following that disagreement, I just don't get it, and I really want to. The justification I end up being led to is a a user essay, not a guideline, and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. If someone convinces me I'll happily change my view and help clean up. But I just genuinely don't get it and feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people are steadfast against alternative capitalizations. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 04:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:Suppose we have a page that intentionally links to more than 7 dab pages like [[Joey (name)]]. That page was tagged with {{tl|dablinks}} by [[:User:DPL bot]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joey_(name)&diff=prev&oldid=1217075152 here] because the links didn't end with "(disambiguation)" like [[WP:INTDAB]] says they should. Once that was fixed, the bot removed the tag. However, had a well meaning editor used "(Disambiguation)" instead in an attempt to fix the problem, the tag would have stayed and the bot would readd it if someone tried to remove it. In that case, the editor trying to fix the problem would be at a loss since all the dab links are correctly marked as such from their perspective. [[User:JaGa]] (who should have been notified of this discussion from the beginning) can correct me if I'm wrong.
*:Now, considering the hypothetical I described above as well as the fact that the number of people who will be inconvenienced by the absence of such redirects is vanishingly small, is it worth it to keep them? [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Nickps|Nickps]]: Would we not have the page link to the proper dab location instead? People linking a redirect by mistake (of say a plausible misspelling) would not be reason enough for redirect variations not to exist. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 14:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::If a tool used to maintain the encyclopaedia encounters something that makes it behave in an undesirable manner then it needs to be either fixed or replaced with a tool that works properly. We should never degrade the reader experience (such as by breaking links) just to make life easier for editorial tools. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::The tool does not behave in an undesirable manner. This is what is supposed to happen. [[WP:INTDAB]] says {{tq|'''the community has adopted the standard of routing ''all'' intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects'''}} (emphasis in the original). This isn't just a faulty assumption by a bot author, there is consensus behind it. Even if we decide that we should keep redirects of the form "... (Disambiguation)", "... (DISAMBIGUATION)" etc., there is no reason to change INTDAB or [[User:DPL bot]]'s behavior. We will just have to replace every mainspace link that points to such a page with the correctly capitalized version. The reason I still want to delete those pages is because I don't think such a process is worth it. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 19:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::If the bot is failing to recognise intentional redirects to disambiguation pages as intentional redirects to disambiguation pages that is undesirable. {{tpq|Even if we decide that we should keep redirects of the form [...] We will just have to replace every mainspace link that points to such a page with the correctly capitalized version.}}{{fake citation needed}}.
*::::The purpose of routing intentional links to disamiguation pages via redirects is so that they can be distinguished from unintentional links to disambiguation pages. The capitalisation (or indeed spelling) of the redirect is completely irrelevant to that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I think INTDAB should stay exactly as is since if we changed it to allow alternative capitalizations, that'd cause intended dab links to be inconsistent with each other, which would look unprofessional. All lowercase "disambiguation" should absolutely be a house style for dab links, even if we allow alternate capitalizations to exist. At best, we could have a bot recognize that those links are intentional and change them to the correct version, but we should not let them stand. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::After carefully re-reading that comment three times, I can't believe that I understood it correctly. Is it seriously suggesting that any old qualifier that looks a bit like "(disambiguation)" will do and, rather than correcting such errors, we should leave them in place and rewrite our processes and software to allow anyone to misspell the word however they like? [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 20:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::You have not understood the comment correctly. I'm saying that we could choose to allow any string that resembled "disambiguation" and still achieve the goal of distinguishing intentional and unintentional links to disambiguation pages. This means that if we want to restrict it to a subset of that then it has to be for other reasons than simply achieving the goal. Personally I think "disambiguation", "Disambiguation" and "DISAMBIGUATION" should all be identified as correct; other capitalisations and any commonly-encountered misspellings (if there are any) should be changed to one of those three by a bot, and misspellings should be flagged for human attention.
*::::::What I didn't say, but should have done, is that regardless of what we choose to accept for internal links that is completely independent of which redirects should be kept for the benefit of people searching or following links from external websites (in the same we keep almost all other redirects from plausible but incorrect capitalisations despite not linking to them internally) [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Thanks; that's clearer. I think that any hypothetical bot should correct other capitalisations in links along with known misspellings, as we currently do manually. That is a discussion for another place but, if we find consensus that INTDAB links to Foo (DISAMBIGUATION) are a good thing, then we should retain redirects of that name rather than deleting them speedily (or slowly), and possibly create the 99.999% of them which are currently missing. That is indeed a different question from whether we should retain such redirects for searching or external links. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 21:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Its quite simple, if you think "Foo (Disambiguation)" or even "Foo (DISAMBIGUATION)" redirects are useful then get consensus to have a bot create all of them. Either readers and editors find them useful, in which case they should all be created or they don't, in which case they should all be deleted unless an exception applies. And if we think things out well as you said in the London discussion (its not clear if you're referring to the individual or mass creation as "well thought out") then we would realize that it is not good use of editor time to create and patrol random DAB redirects rather than create them when a bot. Again this is different to other types of redirects like where one redirect for an alternative name is used while the other isn't. All DAB pages have the same function and the (im)plausibility applies to all such titles regardless of if someone arbitrarily creates some. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 19:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:Crouch, Swale|Crouch, Swale]]: What makes alternative capitalizations on disambiguators any different from alternative capitalization redirects? I don't see people up in arms about alternative caps used for a wide variety of redirects. I'm not arguing for the full caps by any stretch, but I'm not sure consensus is even required for alternative capitalizations. As for, "{{tq|..then we would realize that it is not good use of editor time to create and patrol random DAB redirects}}", the bot which automatically patrols a number of redirects typically automatically marks a wide variety of alternative capitalizations as patrolled as well. I don't believe this would add much, if any, burden to the NPP team. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::RDAB gives the reasons for DAB pages with incorrect qualifiers and if we wanted them they would be created with the correct templates etc. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 14:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*::{{od}}RDAB is an essay that expresses opinions. Some of those reflect widespread consensus, some of those opinions do not, and it makes no effort to distinguish them. It also makes no attempt to justify most of those opinions - e.g. it doesn't give any reasoning why "(Disambiguation)" should be regarded as less correct than "(disambiguation)". [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Crouch, Swale|Crouch, Swale]]: I've read the [[WP:RDAB]] essay, but I fail to see how disambiguators using a different capitalization are harmful to the encyclopedia but redirects using alternative capitalization without a disambiguation are not (not that I want other alternative capitalizations deleted, just wanted to ask this again since it wasn't addressed). In short, I'm looking for an explanation and justification other than because a user essay says. I'm trying very hard to understand how the disambiguations in brackets, such as "(Actor)", "(Politician)", or "(Singer)", make the site worse, but no one has offered up a good explanation. Capitalization after the opening bracket certainly isn't unlikely, someone may have just held the shift button a slight bit too long. Newer users also usually aren't familiar with our naming conventions, so it doesn't seem implausible that someone may capitalize what's in brackets not knowing that we don't do so. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 15:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Bots which mark redirects as patrolled just look at who created them rather than attempting to triage their title, target, rcats, etc. Being patrolled in this way simply means that a trusted editor thought it should be created (or made a mistake). [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 17:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Certes|Certes]]: That's actually not true, the bot will mark certain kinds of redirects as patrolled, even if you aren't on the [[WP:RAL|redirect autopatrol list]]. See some of the rules for the bot listed at [[User:DannyS712 bot III/rules]]. You'll note under bot task #38, point B, focuses on the target and the redirect, comparing the two for differences in capitalization and marking them as patrolled. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 18:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::Ah, thanks for the correction. I remember making suggestions when Danny was writing the bot about what sort of redirects could safely be passed, then I ended up with mine being passed based on author, but I didn't realise both measures were in place. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 18:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::If you have any more suggestions about redirects you think that should be autopatrolled I'd love to hear it @[[User:Certes|Certes]]. We recently reached consensus to autopatrol the redirects left behind by page movers when a page is moved (based on the threshold to receive the page mover permission, we should be able to trust the moves made by these users). [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Thanks, I'll have a think and reply somewhere more relevant. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::A bot would still make fewer mistakes than a human if programmed correctly and would manage to create consistency. {{Ping|Hey man im josh|Thryduulf}} [[WP:AFFINITY]] says {{tq|or a disambiguated title with one parenthesis missing (the last is an example of an unnatural error; i.e. an error specific to Wikipedia titling conventions that would likely not be arrived at naturally by readers, thereby adding to the implausibility)}}. A title when the error is in brackets (or commas) is generally implausible as its very unlikely anyone will make use of it and as [[User:BD2412|BD2412]] said in the 2022 RFD {{tq|as it stands these excess incoming links are a nuisance to editors trying to fix disambiguation errors. Deleting these will only enable access to the links with the proper capitalization}}. So with almost no likelihood of use by readers (and if it is likely we should create all) but an inconvenience to editors who's efforts would be better spent of improving other things for our readers I think this along with the 2022 and 26 March RFD that there is a consensus (though weak) that these should not exist. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 22:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Note that [[WP:AFFINITY]] is just a different section of the same essay so you haven't actually answered the question asked. No evidence is presented for the assertion that {{tpq|A title when the error is in brackets (or commas) is generally implausible as its very unlikely anyone will make use of it}} - indeed in multiple AfDs evidence that people ''do'' use some redirects that have "errors" within the parentheses. {{tpq|Deleting these will only enable access to the links with the proper capitalization.}} As repeatedly explained, this is false - some readers will access the content they are looking for via other links, other readers will not.
*::::::::As also mentioned multiple times, the inconvenience to editors can be solved at a stroke by changing the programming of the bot to stop flagging the redirects as errors (and/or by changing them itself). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::No evidence has been presented to support the claim that readers will benefit from a few random qualified redirects to DAB pages while multiple editors who fix DAB linked have expressed the point that they inconvenience editors. In a few cases evidence has been presented that they get a few views and have a few links but that doesn't show the viewers would actually have been inconvenienced as its likely the readers would have landed on the correctly capitalized version first time and the links would be corrected/wouldn't have been made to the incorrect title "A redirect that has other wikipages linked to it is not necessarily a good reason for keeping it. Current internal wikilinks can be updated to point to the current title.". '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 21:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::"No evidence presented" – Seriously? There absolutely has been evidence that these can be useful. It's funny considering the crux of your argument is a user essay and [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. As mentioned, the bots can be tweaked. Please ping me when you propose another rationale to delete all alternative capitalizations on Wiki because of people mistakenly linking to a redirect. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 21:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::{{Ping|Hey man im josh}} From what I can see leaving aside the linkrot arguments that were presented in the 2022 discussion (but obviously not in the 2024 discussion) the main reason for keeping them was that some people navigate using direct URLs rather than the search box but there wasn't any reason to believe that its likely many will do that for the very small number of them that exist. And I didn't write the essay which is in the project space not userspace though I did add a "See also" to an essay I write years ago and have commented on the talk page, see [[WP:PERESSAY]]. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::When asked for a reason other than "this user essay, that presents no evidence to back up its assertions, says so" you point to... a user essay that doesn't even discuss the topic, let alone present relevant evidence? Why do you think that is relevant?
*::::::::::::Your other argument is "evidence was presented in discussions that people use these redirects" as evidence for your assertion that people don't use these redirects. That's not convincing me you are listening to what people are saying to you. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::{{Ping|Thryduulf}} [[WP:RDAB]] is ''not'' a [[WP:User essay]] (yes it was a user essay in the past but its been in the project space for nearly 8 years) its a project essay that as noted I haven't really contributed to and most people support even though a significant minority oppose it. I'm just going by the consensus of which COSTLY has been cited in hundreds of RFDs over many years so its not my personal preference I'm going by what the consensus is which appears to be that they should be deleted. RDAB specifically discusses redirects with incorrect qualifiers. That's not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. If you want a reason other than based on the project space essay then I'd argue that those created accidentally (and were moved to the correct case) are [[Special:Diff/1106385203|borderline G6]]. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*::{{od}}Those which are G6 can and should be deleted under that criterion so a new one isn't needed. Of the rest, firstly there aren't that many (so a new criterion isn't needed) and secondly not all of them ''should'' be deleted reducing the number even further. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Crouch, Swale|Crouch, Swale]]:
*::* [[WP:RDAB]] states: {{tq|This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.}}
*::* {{tq|WP:RDAB is not a WP:User essay}} – The point is it's an essay created by a few people, not policy, so the semantics of it don't really matter. These things have a habit of not changing beyond the original's writers intentions, otherwise people encourage someone to write another essay.
*::* {{tq|I haven't really contributed to and most people support even though a significant minority oppose it}} – You may not have contributed to it, but you're using it as the primary rationale when arguing for additional CSD criteria to be added. As you mention though, a significant minority oppose it, meaning this suggestion does not fit the criteria of being uncontroversial.
*::* {{tq|RDAB specifically discusses redirects with incorrect qualifiers.}} – [[Template:R from incorrect disambiguation]] and [[Template:R from miscapitalisation]] both exist as relevant categories and are accepted types of redirects, by and large. It's unclear how a mis/alternative capitalization in brackets makes the search time suddenly in valid.
*::* {{tq|If you want a reason other than based on the project space essay then I'd argue that those created accidentally (and were moved to the correct case) are borderline G6.}} – I've been begging for a reason other than the essay. As mentioned though, I fail to see what makes an alternative/miscapitalization of the first letter of a disambiguator an unlikely search term and an unhelpful redirect.
*::Thryduulf and I have presented numerous examples of how these redirects are possibly useful, but throughout the discussion you keep coming back to RDAB. Whether you want to use the words or not, this absolutely boils down to a case of IDONTLIKEIT. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{Ping|Hey man im josh}} An essay that has been endorsed by the majority of people does appear to have consensus. Yes PANDORA is clearly controversial but RDAB appears to be less so even though it is still controversial. CHEAP is also an essay which has existed longer which has also been used by numerous people and IDONTLIKEIT which I don't think apples here is also one.
*:::Yes that is a reason against it but many CSD criteria are also somewhat controversial. If there is a weak consensus it may be useful to have it.
*:::Such templates are used on redirects but redirects with implausible or malformatted qualifiers are also commonly deleted at RFD.
*:::Though policies and guidelines are stronger arguments as noted essays can still be used to argue things on Wikipedia. In any case as noted both the 2022 and 2024 RFDs neither of which were started by me resulted in a consensus to delete. You don't have to agree with that consensus and are free to argue against it but to claim IDONTLIKEIT in face of those RFDs seems a bit odd.
*:::The main arguments you and Thryduulf have presented are direct URL entering and the fact people have thought it necessary to create them but as noted it doesn't appear readers are likely to find them useful due to the qualifiers being WP specific and the way the search box goes. Though I would say its hard to provide evidence either way though I accept incoming links is evidence of this. I'd also give more weight to what users who use/participate in the DAB fixing tools than what I think and as noted multiple such people have complained about them. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Crouch, Swale|Crouch, Swale]]: {{tq|An essay that has been endorsed by the majority of people}} – Citation needed.
:::::I actually didn't mention the URL stuff. I said that it's easily possible, and likely that it happens all the time, where one user is typing and holds the shift button a little too long when adding a bracket, only to accidentally capitalize the first letter of the disambiguator. I have also said that I fail to see how these are harmful redirects. As we've also repeatedly mentioned when you bring up the search, the auto fill and drop down of options when you've partially typed in the search box doesn't work in every scenario, as you're suggesting. As such, it's then easy to see how a redirect from a typo / miscapitalization could be useful.
:::::I keep going back to IDONTLIKEIT because the focus of this discussion has been largely on the content of an essay that doesn't make any argument for why the redirects are harmful or detrimental. If there isn't an argument besides an essay and "they were deleted before", then that's IDONTLIKEIT.
:::::{{tq|I'd also give more weight to what users who use/participate in the DAB fixing tools than what I think and as noted multiple such people have complained about them.}} – Do you give weight to the people who review the redirects? I see alternative capitalization all the time, and when it's just on the first letter of a word I always mark it as reviewed for the reason that it could be helpful to someone.
:::::Franky I don't care at all about PANDORA in this situation. As an NPP coordinator / the leading redirect reviewer since over the past year and a half, I can attest that it's no extra work for reviewers (alt capitalizations are already auto reviewed) and we could ask Anome to have their bot auto create these like they do for titles with an en dash in the (the redirects they create use hyphens).
:::::In short, the alternative capitalization of the first letter is harmless, it's possibly useful, and it's not an improvement to the Wiki to delete these. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 21:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::Directet URL entry is simply one example of a case-sensitive method of navigating Wikipedia, it is not the only one. Many of these redirects have non-trivial numbers of page views, which is objectively evidence of them being used and, given they lead unambiguously to the only correct target, evidence of utility.
:::::{{tpq|If there is a weak consensus it may be useful to have [a CSD criterion].}} is absolutely incorrect. CSD is explicitly only for the most obvious cases where everything that could be deleted by a criterion should be deleted, according to consensus. Situations where the is only a weak consensus at best cannot meet those requirements. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{Ping|Hey man im josh|Thryduulf}} I don't know a huge amount about how DAB fixes work and how these interfere with it but [[User:Certes]] does appear to so may be able to explain better. In terms of caring about readers (or editors) using the redirects I'd argue its more confusing to have such redirects for a small number than not at all and if we thought such redirects were useful we would just get a bot to create all of them meaning such searches would always work rather than working in a small number of cases similar to the comments at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24#Absolutely every malformed disambiguation without parentheses]]. So if we care about people being able to use such redirects why not do it for all. Personally I'm normally an inclusionist but I think such redirects are outside that, on a similar note just because I think its a good idea to have a separate article on every municipality and census settlement and even other settlements doesn't mean I would think its a good idea to have an article on every farm or building. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 19:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So, basically, because there's not enough of the redirects of this style you're arguing it's more confusing? We could easily request AnomieBot be configured to create these types of redirects. As for the linked AfD, that's an entirely different set of potential disambiguations which are less likely than the likely possibility of accidently using an alternative capitalization. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Personally I think helping people find the page they are looking for on some occasions is much better than going out of our way to never help them, but if creating a "(Disambiguation)" redirect to match every "(disambiguation)" page or redirect is what it takes to stop making the encyclopaedia harder to navigate then let's just do that. As for the linked RfD, you will see that I argued to keep those that are navigationally useful so I'm not sure why you think that example of OTHERSTUFF is helpful to your argument? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Link fixing is needed after an editor links to a dab such as [[Mercury]] when they meant [[Mercury (planet)]]. Very occasionally, we really do want a link to the dab. (''For other uses, see [[Mercury]]''). To mark such cases so we don't keep checking them repeatedly, we apply [[WP:INTDAB]] and link to [&#91;Mercury (disambiguation)|Mercury]]. Experienced dab fixers know to skip such links, and so do tools which produce reports such as [https://tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/disambig_links.php Disambiguation pages with links]. They don't skip (Disambiguation), (DISAMBIGUATION) or (Disrandomtypotion), so links to such redirects would have to be checked again and again. Eventually, they would mount up and dwarf the actual errors. At that point, we would have no alternative but to give up and just leave all the bad links for our readers to follow. In fact, if (Disambiguation) redirects are created systematically, I for one will see no point in continuing this work and will give up immediately. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{Ping|Thryduulf}} Yes I know you !voted to keep but Josh !voted to delete which is who I was asking that particular question to. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Certes|Certes]] alternatively, the tools could just be adjusted so they don't mark "(Disambiguation)" etc as errors - indeed as they ''aren't'' errors they shouldn't marked as such at the moment. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support all except capitalisation of first letter''', so I think this should be reworded to exclude that if it passes. As countless RfDs leading to [[WP:SNOW]]-level deletions (and amusing the daily logs to become massive) have shown, these redirects are completely unnecessary, unhelpful to the point that they are [[WP:COSTLY]] and should not exist, and they have clogged up the RfD log from discussions many times in the past. Therefore, this speedy deletion category is needed so that these can be deleted efficiently without wasting time or space at RfD. However, unlike the redirect types outlined at [[WP:RDAB]] and the other categories, there is a ''small'' chance that redirects with the alternate capitalisation can be useful. Even though this chance is small, I still think it is enough to justify a full discussion at RfD rather than speedy deletion. Leaving only this type of redirect for RfD is not enough to clog the daily log up with discussions, so I see this arrangement as a win-win where the unhelpful, unnecessary [[WP:RDAB]]-type redirects are speedily deleted as they should while redirects with a small chance of usefulness get a full RfD discussion without filling the log up with discussions. [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|<b>InterstellarGamer12321</b>]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|<span style="color:#157710;">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/InterstellarGamer12321|<span style="color:#e00000;">contribs</span>]]) 11:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:Also, I think at least some (if not all) of the text currently at [[WP:RDAB]] should be added to the speedy deletion criterion definition to specify which types of redirects fall under this criterion to avoid confusion. [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|<b>InterstellarGamer12321</b>]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|<span style="color:#157710;">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/InterstellarGamer12321|<span style="color:#e00000;">contribs</span>]]) 11:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*If first-letter capitalization ([[Foo (Disambiguation)]]) is excluded, then no evidence has been presented that this happens ''at all'', let alone frequently enough. And [[Foo (desambiguation)]] is either an R3 or needs more than one pair of eyes anyway. No argument to answer. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
**And the case for first-letter capitalization ''can't'' be made; there's been [[quarry:query/81833|763 such deletions ever]], with more than half on two days in late 2022. It's not because they're not being deleted, either, since only [[quarry:query/81832|four such pages currently exist]]. ([[Ø (Disambiguation)]] isn't a disambig.) This isn't remotely frequent enough to need a speedy deletion criterion. It's frequent enough for another batch rfd in another twenty years. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 13:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
**:It's just 3. [[O (Disambiguation)]] is an {{tl|R to diacritic}} that redirects to [[Ø (Disambiguation)]]. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 21:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
**::Yes, [[Ø (Disambiguation)]] is a [[WP:IAR|IAR]] exception, notorious amongst dab maintainers for coming up as a false positive whenever we check for dodgy titles. Unsurprisingly, there are no pages with a qualifier of (DISAMBIGUATION) in all capitals. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 21:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' because it is rare for people to capitalise "Disambiguation" or said word in all caps. "desambiguation" is a typo that would obviously be qualified for R3 anyways. [[User:ToadetteEdit|<span style="color:#fc65b8;">'''Toadette'''</span>]] <sup>''([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|<span style="color:blue;">Let's talk together!</span>]])''</sup> 10:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*:Things that are rare fail [[WP:NEWCSD]] requirement 3. Also "rare" is not the same thing as "harmful". [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We already have criteria for the most obvious misspelling issues, redirects are cheap, deleting a redirect using other than CSD isn't exactly a burden on the system. I don't see this as solving a real issue, but it could cause some. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 06:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf and Dennis Brown. R3 suffices for most cases, and the rest can go to RfD. This is simply not a significant problem. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' these routinely get deleted at RfD; there is no reason to have the same debate 1000 times when the merits remain the same every single time. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': gods, are we still arguing about this? Per Thryduulf and my previous comments. These rarely do any harm. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 15:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
* Wait, aren't we discussing something similar above? It feels like this proposal should have been incorporated into that RfC, perhaps as a secondary question. Regardless, '''support'''; there is consensus from countless RfD discussions, not merely from the wording at RDAB, that these redirects are not helpful and should be deleted. [[User:InfiniteNexus|InfiniteNexus]] ([[User talk:InfiniteNexus|talk]]) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
*:They are properly separate because they deal with different things, only one of which meets the requirements for a speedy deletion criterion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I would be okay with this if we limit it to recently created redirects (similar to how A10 and R3 are limited to recently created redirects). Without this qualification, I '''oppose''' the change. For redirects that have existed a long time, the small maintenance benefit of deleting them doesn't outweigh the risk of breaking incoming external links ([[WP:RFD#KEEP]] point 4). —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 13:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


== Proposal: add a "recency" clause to G4 ==
The following would not be "unusable" grounds within the context of the proposed CSD, but would be grounds for requesting FFD or PROD on an image:-
* Images where model or participant consent is not explicitly stated.
* Images lacking a detailed contextual explanation of what the media contains, the articles in which it is intended to be used, and what points or content in those articles it is intended to support (essentially amounting to an "explicit image use rationale").


I propose to add a clause to [[WP:G4]] (recreations of deleted articles) to restrict the criterion to recreations of ''recently deleted'' pages. Proposed changes:
[[User:ShakespeareFan00|ShakespeareFan00]] ([[User talk:ShakespeareFan00|talk]]) 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is also [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], so "explicit" is not a workable definition for a new criterion. Lack of authorship, attribution and source leads, in most cases, to lack of licensing information and is thus covered by F4 or F11. Files that are so corrupt that the subject is not identifiable should probably be covered by F2 already. "Illegal" is not something an admin can really determine and is thus not objective enough for speedy deletion. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 18:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
: You can always just PROD the files ... [[User:Pppery|&#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:How often do images like this come up at FFD? Do they always close as "delete"? Are we being swamped by them to the point that the FFD regulars are not finding enough time to handle the non-explicit images that are sent there? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
::As an FFD volunteer, we get hardly any. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">–&nbsp;[[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 09:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': As mentioned, I see where you're going, but most of your edge cases can be covered by perhaps amending G3 with an "images uploaded solely for shock value with no possible encyclopedic use". <span style="border:1px solid #445A38;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#8f5902">ViperSnake151</span>]] [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#fff;background:#88A976;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]] </span> 17:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*:G3 already covers that, see [[Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism]]: {{xt|Uploading shock images [...]}} Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Out of the roughly 2000 deletions I have performed, I don't remember any that would fit this criterion. The speedy deletion policy is designed to reduce the volume at xFD. In the absence of a significant volume of problematic material, I can't see why we would adopt such a subjective policy with so many clear possibilities for disagreement. '''[[User:UninvitedCompany|<span style="color:green">Uninvited</span>]][[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Company]]''' 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Out of the roughly 13,000 deletions I have performed, I don't remember any that would fit this criterion. Since what constitutes "explicit" is always going to be subjective—what's porn to you might be a noteworthy artwork or a useful medical illustration to me—such things are never going to be appropriate for speedy deletion unless they already fall into one of the existing criteria, in which case we don't need another.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as the criterion is too complex and subjective. In my deleting I have not come across such images either, so they must be rare. Removal from articles can be done, and the pic left for FFD. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


{{tq2|This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page {{green|recently}} deleted {{red|<s>via its most recent</s>}} {{green|as the result of a}} [[Wikipedia:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]]. [...] }}
: Query: Which current criteria would cover images that if assesed by a competent legal professional as potentially "obscene" (with respect to US Federal law, and those of the State of Virginia) would have to be removed for legal reasons? (Also such images should presumably be reported to a contact off wiki.) ? [[User:ShakespeareFan00|ShakespeareFan00]] ([[User talk:ShakespeareFan00|talk]]) 08:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|ShakespeareFan00}} That would likely be [[WP:G9]], since its up to [[User:WMF Legal]] to decide that content {{tq|would have to be removed for legal reasons}} --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 08:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{ec}}[[WP:G9]] - the WMF has a [[m:Legal|legal team]], and it is ultimately their job to assess if something is illegal and so to remove it. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 08:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*If an image is unused & unusable, does it matter if it's explicit or not? "I '''oppose'''" is explicit, and I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. On the other hand, "I fucking oppose", is veering into obscenity. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 08:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


(There is a footnote following "deletion discussion" explaining that the most recent deletion discussion determines the validity of this criterion, so I don't think that needs to be awkwardly shoehorned into the criterion itself.)
== G14 ==


I have noticed a trend lately of editors tagging articles with this criterion and linking to a "most recent" discussion that is many years old, both for pages recently created, and for pages which were recreated shortly after their deletion discussion but have hung around for many years without issue. A problem with G4 is that non-admins can't see the deleted version to compare to, but I don't think it's reasonable to presume that no new information is available many years later, nor is it reasonable to assume that an editor creating an article on a topic which was deleted many years ago is recreating an identical article, and so these tags don't meet the "objective" nor the "uncontestable" provisions of speedy deletion. This criterion is meant to capture obvious attempts to evade deletion, but the current scope is too broad. I don't have a suggestion for defining "recently" but we have similar clauses in other criteria.
As far as I was aware DAB pages that have a primary topic and there is only 1 other ([[WP:2DABS]]) can be deleted as unnecessary DAB pages. This was quite clear in the past but it looks like since G6 was split, the inclusion of situation where there are only 2 topics and there is a primary topic has been lost for some reason. See [[User talk:Patar knight#Ross Greer (disambiguation)]] and [[User talk:Sir Sputnik#Magnus Lindberg (disambiguation)]]. I would note though that DAB entries that are red links and part title matches do still count as "entries" for this purpose. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:Looking at the plain wording of G14 as it is now, if there is a primary topic and a non-primary topic on a 2DAB, then it is still disambiguating two extant articles and ineligible for G14. My experience has been that they are then typically PRODed, so they show up at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Article_alerts]] for a week and gives room for editors who work with DABs to review them. This interpretation fits with the framework of CSD as getting rid of unambiguous cases and letting other deletion processes deal with less clear cases.
:For DABs, those "disambiguating" one or zero DAB entries absolutely fail as DAB pages and are arguably actively unhelpful in navigation, while those with two entries do not. Those with two entries are more easily converted into valid DABs with the addition of only one additional entry or might be converted into a 2DAB page with no primary topic if the article at the base name doesn't have a solid claim to be the primary topic. Having a 2DAB page is at worst neutral, and an additional week to potentially save it isn't a big deal.
:Looking through the history of G14/G6 I don't think that it ever explicitly allowed deletion of 2DABs with a primary topic:
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=310945508&oldid=310792169 August 2009]: Added to G6 as "deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=531641963&oldid=530251911 January 2013]: G6 is broken out into bullet points
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=534646844&oldid=534489223 January 2013]: "unnecessary is clarified as "those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles."
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=771844158&oldid=771811258 March 2017]: "links" to zero/one extant article is changed to "disambiguates" zero/one extant articles.
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=874641551&oldid=874283383 December 2018]: G14 is split off from G6 with minimal changes.
:My interpretation of [[User:Tavix|Tavix]]'s change in March 2017 is that linking the previous wording technically allowed DAB pages with zero valid dab entries but some links to existing articles, either in invalid DAB entries or a "See also" section, to escape speedy deletion. The new wording shows that the linked articles must be part of a valid dab entry, not just any link whatsoever. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 01:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*I would '''support''' a speedy deletion option for disambiguation topics where there is one clear primary topic, only one other topic, and for which the primary topic page already contains a hatnote to the other topic, with no link to the disambiguation page. In that case, any reader looking up the term is already going to be taken to a page with an existing hatnote leading to the other topic, so there is no point in the disambiguation page existing. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*I fully agree with Patar knight. Dab pages with a primary topic and only one other link are pretty useless most of the time, but the emphasis here is on "most of the time". Such pages are normally dealt with using PROD, and often enough it would happen that somebody might come along and expand the page with additional entries. Or it might turn out that the page is a result of a bad move. Or it could disambiguate between two articles only because of a previous overzealous attempt at cleanup that had removed valid links. Etc, etc. There are too many possible scenarios and too many nuances for CSD to be appropriate, and there are too few pages of this kind getting deleted for there to be a need for an extension of the existing criteria. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*I agree with Uanfala that extending CSD to cover primary+1 disambiguation pages is not appropriate. In addition to the scenarios they list, in some cases there will be people navigating directly to the disambiguation page where they know or suspect the topic they are looking for is not primary but do not know what its title is. Whether this is likely will depend on factors that cannot be judged by a single admin reviewing CSD nominations. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as proposer. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
==X3 ==
*'''Comment''' I'm not sure whether this is necessary because a substantially identical version can appear the same after 3 months or 3 years. An objective reference point could be that if the new version cites at least one reliable source more recent than the last deletion discussion, G4 is unlikely to apply. However, I'm unsure if the frequency of "gaming" such a criterion (i.e., shoehorning a recent source into an article otherwise identical to the one deleted) would be high enough to merely discourage such tagging, or low enough that such pages can safely be automatically disqualified from G4. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 14:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Can someone add Permalinks to the AN discussion, the recently closed MfDs where various users expressed a need for X3, and the VPP where various users requested some version of X3? The discussion is so fagmented but the conclusion in favor of X3 is very clear. Also we are going to call it X3 not P3 even though it is for Portals. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The question is not whether the deletion was recent, the question is whether the reasons for deletion still apply. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Pretty much per Kusma - this IMO defeats the point. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*How long generally would have to go by to prevent G4? I don't think anything less than 10 or 5 years would be a good idea especially since our inclusion criteria often get stricter. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Kusma. In some cases previous discussions stay relevant for over a decade, in others they're obsolete within weeks. I am open to clarification regarding when it applies, but a nebulous "recent" is not it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The points raised in a deletion discussion don't automatically become invalid because time has passed since the discussion. Adding this restriction to G4 would just force us to open more discussions where we restate arguments that were raised years before, and Wikipedia has enough active deletion discussions as is. [[User:Glades12|Glades12]] ([[User talk:Glades12|talk]]) 18:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


== Proposed new or modified criterion: clear SALT evasion ==
Confirmed the X3 [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as mass created Portals]] now exists and pages get added when [[Template:Db-x3]] is added. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


This proposal is for a criterion for deletion of articles which are obvious recreations of any article that is [[WP:SALT|create protected]]. This is possibly already partly covered by [[WP:G4]] (though only for "substantially identical" recreations) or [[WP:G5]] (though that is based on the editor, not the topic) but I would like to create an explicit, articles-only criterion for this (so as to except legitimate drafts). Proposed wording:
'''List of pages''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=500&type=create&user=The+Transhumanist&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=] there may be a better way to list them. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 01:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:Indeed there is - that doesn't list pages created before June 27 or pages created outside of Portal: and then moved there, and includes redirects and already-deleted pages. [[quarry:query/34239]] (all pages) or [[quarry:query/34240]] (omits subpages). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 03:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
::Useful Query for quantifying the issue, not so useful for tagging as the page names are not clickable and don't turn red as they are deleted. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 09:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=5000&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=The+Transhumanist&namespace=100&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end= this query] what you're looking for? (Note that if someone else created the page at a different title and TTH moved it to the portal namespace, this query will show TTH as the creator, so double-check the history before tagging unless it has an obvious edit summary like "created new portal".)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;[[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 09:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Legacypac}} Quarry queries can be downloaded as a wikitable - see [[User:Galobtter/Portals by TTH]]. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 09:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


{{tq2|'''Axx: Unambiguous creations of a topic protected against creation.''' This applies to any article, having any title, that is an unambiguous creation of any topic that has been [[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection (salting)|protected from creation]] under any title, or is an unambiguous attempt to evade the [[MediaWiki:Titleblacklist|title blacklist]]. This criterion does not apply to drafts approved by [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|articles for creation]] nor content recreated by a [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion|request for undeletion]] or [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]. It also does not apply if the page creator holds the userrights to override the creation protection, though it is expected that users creating a protected page will have consulted with the protecting administrator first.}}
:::Iridescent's and Galobtter's queries are perfect. Look at the creation rate - I spotted 5 a minute in some cases.
:::I'm not aware of any Portals created elsewhere and they don't work elsewhere (like draft) so page moves from outside spaces are not likely to be a big problem. He did rename a few Portal though so watch for that.
:::X3 does not address the equally problematic "rebooted" portals[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals/Tasks#Please_remove_Featured_portal_star_from_these_portals] or the approx 1000 built by other editors in exactly the same way using his instructions. I started building a list here [[User:Legacypac/not x3 portals]] but it is painstaking to check each one. Better to wait till X3 pages are deleted first as so many Portals one checks will go X3. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 09:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as proposer. Open to suggestions for wording, of course. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
== Clarification on G8 ==
*Not sure that this is needed, and if it is, it should be via clarification of G4 instead of a new A criterion. Why should it not apply in Wikipedia space? —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 14:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*On second thought, '''oppose''', this seems backwards. SALT is there to help enforce G4, we shouldn't add secondary criteria to deal with people going around the tool that helps us deal with G4. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Makes sense. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. An admin can salt a title for any reason whatsoever. This criterion would give any admin unilateral power to declare any topic speedy-deletable. -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*If whatever's created in defiance of a salting isn't already speedyable, then the salting isn't valid. Evasion of salting is an indicator that we need to escalate to other tools - typically some combination of blacklisting, blocking, and edit filters - not just to deescalate to simple deletion, which has already shown itself to be inadequate by the very fact that it's salted to begin with. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' G4 seems sufficient, as noted an admin can protect a page sometimes if its only re created a few times and then sometimes 10\20 years down the line someone completely different wants to create a page sometimes on a completely different topic. Personally I'd rethink if we should even be salting many pages anyway. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', mostly per Cryptic. G4 already applies to pages with any title, so for pages that are substantially identical this is redundant. For pages that are not substantially identical, then if they are not already speediable under a different criterion then we should not be speedy deleting them - not least because some of them will have addressed the reason for the first deletion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' G4 already covers this, and is intentionally broad in that you can delete virtually any title if it is substantially similar. Adding a new cat would likely muddy the waters. I don't see the need to even tweak G4, but if it needed it, that would be better than a new cat of CSD. Additionally, if a user is creating multiple articles to bypass SALT, they typically get blocked for WP:DE, and any SALT bypassing article they create using a sock can be deleted under G5 '''or''' G4. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per King of Hearts. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 02:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. If the original page met a CSD, then the same criterion can be used to delete it under any other title. If the page was deleted after an XfD, then you can use G4 regardless of the new title. If neither is true, an admin shouldn't have deleted the page in the first place let alone used the salt feature. [[User:Glades12|Glades12]] ([[User talk:Glades12|talk]]) 18:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


== Clickable icons to CSD template ==
{{transcluded section|Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion}}
{{#section-h:Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion|Point of clarification re CSD of '''UNUSED''' doc templates}}


Hello, I've proposed adding a clickable icon to the speedy deletion tags. Please visit [[Template talk:Db-meta#Add clickable icon]] to participate in the proposal. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 20:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
== Proposal: Expand G5 to include undisclosed paid editing ==
===Main proposal===
{{rfc|policy|prop|rfcid=66F0023}}
Currently [[WP:G5|G5]] is actionable for articles created by editors violating a block or ban. This is a ''personal'' block or ban: "To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban."


== Proposal (U3A) ==
Well, an undisclosed paid editor is "banned" from editing, not by Wikipedia policy but by the WMF's Terms of Use. This ban isn't directed at any specific editor, but editing without disclosing payment is blockable.


I am proposing a new criteria:
A discussion on the OTRS mailing list suggests that it would make sense, as an additional deterrent, to treat articles created by such editors as any other G5 article, but the wording of G5 would need to change.
*'''U3''': A user page which is the exact same content as an existing page, and which have no reason to do so. This would only apply to the main user page, not others.
Feel free to comment. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">[[W:EN:User:TheTechie|<span style="color:Green">thetechie@enwiki</span>]]</span>: [[User talk:TheTechie|<span style="MediumBlue">~/talk/</span>]] <span style="">$</span></span> 01:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as proposer. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">[[W:EN:User:TheTechie|<span style="color:Green">thetechie@enwiki</span>]]</span>: [[User talk:TheTechie|<span style="MediumBlue">~/talk/</span>]] <span style="">$</span></span> 01:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
We have the Terms of Use, and we have G5, and the purpose of G5 seems like a good fit for enforcing the Terms of Use ban on undisclosed paid editing.
*If we are going to create a new UCSD, it would be U6 ([[WP:U3]] was previously non-free image galleries in userspace). If I understand the proposal correctly, would this be to deal with [[WP:COPIES]] issues? If so, I support such a CSD (see [[WP:MFD]], which is currently flooded with COPIES issues). However, the wording needs some work (in particular, to add a grace period for temporary drafting). <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 01:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' no reason these pages should be deleted instead of blanked or redirected to the page they copy from. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 02:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*I don't really understand the situation or the use case. If it's someone's own userpage, they can use U1. If it's someone else's, then there might be a reason the proposer does not know. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*I don't see the need. If they copy a page over from mainspace to their page without attribution, we can delete it as a copyvio, technically speaking. Most of the time I've seen people do this, they are using the user page as a sandbox and just don't know they have a sandbox. They may either be preparing a major rewrite, or just trying to learn how to do things. Both circumstances mean they need to use a sandbox, but it isn't particularly disruptive. The only problems I typically see with "articles" on userpages are copies of deleted articles, without attribution, because they are trying to push them back into mainspace. We already handle those via G4 or G12, even tho it isn't in article space. I guess my point is, I don't see what problem this would fix when we already have plenty of tools to deal with actual problems on user's pages. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 07:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Dennis Brown and Pppery. Deletion isn't needed in the majority of cases and we have existing criteria available for what it is. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*Just noting from a "copyvio" perspective that attribution can easily be provided in an edit summary (e.g. "text here copied from [[XYZ]]") and almost never requires G12 (and in fact most times is a bit of IAR when deleting as such). [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 09:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*:Perhaps, but a little bit of discussion (or totality of circumstances) can usually tell you if deletion or education is the solution. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 09:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*G12 [[WP:G12|specifically excludes copies from Wikipedia]]: {{tq|"free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do[es] not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion"}}. Copying within Wikipedia is allowed for a reason and [[WP:RIA|it's easy to repair "bad" copies]]; please don't delete unattributed copies under G12. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 10:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*:That isn't what I was proposing. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">[[W:EN:User:TheTechie|<span style="color:Green">thetechie@enwiki</span>]]</span>: [[User talk:TheTechie|<span style="MediumBlue">~/talk/</span>]] <span style="">$</span></span> 16:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*::I was responding to the comments saying that G12 could be used to delete unattributed copies; I wasn't commenting on your proposal specifically. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 21:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*[[WP:COPIES]] and the section below it deals with this. This criteria seems like a good idea but I don't think would pass NEWCSD due to being potentially bity and cases where someone needed a copy to work on before adding to the mainspace article. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


== Proposal: new criteria for duplicate drafts ==
I suggest adding after the bullet list in G5:
{{atop
:"In addition, because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by Wikimedia Foundation policy, articles created by undisclosed paid editors are candidates for speedy deletion under G5."
| status = withdrawn
Or an alternative suggested by Cryptic below:
| result = Just redirecting instead. <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 13:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:"In addition, because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by Wikimedia Foundation policy, articles created by editors who have been indef-blocked for undisclosed paid editing are candidates for speedy deletion under G5."
What say everyone? ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 22:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Anachronist}} I like the idea... My question becomes how do you determine that the user IS an undisclosed paid editor? I've personally accused someone of being a paid editor to later find out it was a high school kid who was just really excited about the product. Page certainly needed to be reworked, but didn't really qualify for CSD. I would argue this sort of article really needs to go through [[WP:AFD]] so that the paid editor status can be proven/flushed out... Now, if on the other hand, the editor in question is blocked as a result of paid editing, that is another story. Just some food for thought. I like the idea. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

* <s>Support</s>.
: Can't support deletion because the criterion is not object, per User:Thryduulf. ([[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_66#New_criteria|we've been here before]]). However, '''''something'''' has to be done. Counter proposal is to [[Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product|Quarantine]] suspected UPE product. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]])
:: <small> Support toughening the current rules to better than toothless. Consistent, or even prerequisite of this, is that at [[WP:COI]] most of the occurrences of the toothless "should" are changed to "must".
:: COI editors MUST NOT edit articles directly; instead they may make requests and suggestions on the talk page.
:: COI editors MUST NOT create articles; instead they may use [[WP:AfC]].
:: UPE editors are a worse-problem subset of COI editors, and the boundary is indistinct. Where a page is the sole product, ignoring minor edits, of a UPE editor or editors, an admin ''may'' delete it per WP:CSD#G5(UPE).
:: Post deletion of UPE product, if the editor later sufficiently declares and complies, the deleted page should not be [[WP:REFUND]]ed, instead, the COI editor may start again, ensuring that all COI editing has links back to a declaration older than the edits. To comply conservatively with attribution requirements, if they request an emailed version, email only the references (there is no creative content in a reference list).

:: I would like to go further, and require paid editors to use a special alternative account, named with the suffix "(paid)". Eg. [[User:Example (paid)]]. This account must be a fully declared alternative account, linking to & from all other accounts controlled by the same person. The right to privacy is compromised by engaging in paid editing. Paid editing accounts must not be allowed to vanish leaving their product live in mainspace.
:: --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
::: I don't support excluding [[Wikipedians in Residence]] or WMF employees. If they are making edits for which they are paid to make, they should use similar declared alt. accounts and suffixed usernames: [[User:Example (WiR)]], and [[User:Example (WMF)]]. Not because they are problem editors, but to set the example for best practice. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
* '''Support'''. Just as I support banning ''any'' form of paid editing (except WIR) and deleting their contributions. Making money out of the work of the volunteers who create and maintain this encyclopedia is dishonorable and unethical. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as a straightforward and long overdue extension of [[WP:DENY]]. The only snag I can foresee is that proving UPE is hard, and it wouldn't be in the spirit of speedy deletion to use it when there's merely a suspicion. I'd suggest restricting the new G5 subcriterion to articles created by users who have subsequently been indefinitely blocked/banned for UPE. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Very strong oppose'''. In order for this to meet the requirements 1 and 2 for a new or expanded criterion (i.e. only applying to things that it should) it would need to be restricted to pages created by ''confirmed'' (not just suspected) undisclosed paid editors, ''for pay'' (i.e. not other articles they have created) who knew at the time of page creation that they needed to disclose and have not, after a reasonable opportunity to do so, disclosed in an appropriate location that they were/are paid to edit, ''and'' the creation was not otherwise permitted by the ToU. Given that it would be impossible for a single admin to verify even half of this it is not remotely suitable for CSD. Even if it were, almost all the actually problematic content would be suitable for speedy deletion under an existing criterion anyway (failing requirement 4 with the remainder probably failing requirement 3 also). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
** Actually, [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] makes an important point. It would be fine to G5 known UPE product, but nearly always, it is a mere suspicion, at best a DUCK test. That is why I proposed: [[Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product]]. Quarantine suspected UPE, blanked so that it looks not there, subpages so that "Quarantine" is in the title, but available for the author to defend themselves. Note that the proposal is rough with serious comments on altering the details, on its talk page. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
***{{reply|Thryduulf}} How about modifying the proposal to delete articles created by editors who have already been blocked for undisclosed paid editing? Often these are checkuser blocks. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 02:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
****{{replyto|SmokeyJoe}} See [[user:SoWhy|SoWhy]]'s point below - I would support this only if it applies only to pages that were created in violation of the ToU, which is not necessarily all of them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
***** [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]], I appreciate that principle, you want to discriminate between UPE-TOU violators and other pedestrian COI editors, but how can you tell the difference if you don’t ask? And if you ask, how can you expect an answer with neither stick nor carrot? And why not chase the pedestrian COI editors to answer a few little questions? —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 10:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
****** If you can't tell the difference between UPE and other COI editors then that is another reason why this cannot work - I oppose in the strongest possible terms penalising editors for breaching the ToU when they have done no such thing. If the article is non-neutral then fix it or delete it - you can do this already. If the article is neutral then there isn't a problem that requires deletion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
******* [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]]. How do you tell the difference between a UPE and another COI editor? Suppose both are newish accounts, all they have done is written a draft on WP:CORP-borderline company&products, a couple OK sources, a half dozen non-independent PR sources, and another half dozen mere-mention sources. This is typical. I don't think I can tell the difference without a little free form discussion. The problem is, most do not even answer. I suspect most are UPEs, but there is no proof. What would you do in this situation? Give the suspect UPEs the benefit of the doubt, and let them through? <br/> Do you have a problem with OK articles in mainspace when they are the product of undisclosed paid editing? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
********If there is no proof that an editor has broken the ToU then it is completely inappropriate for us to be treating them if they have. If there is a neutral, BLP-compliant article about a notable topic in the main namespace then the encyclopaedia would be harmed by deleting it (assuming it's not a copyvio) - why does it matter who wrote it? If the Foundation want editors to rigorously enforce the TOU prohibition on UPE then they need to (a) explicitly ask us and (b) give us the tools to do so reliably. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
********* That is logical. I think, for an editor that does not self-declare, given the privacy policy, there can never be proof. Are people getting hyped up about UPE for no good reason? Is there evidence of a problem? Beyond NPP and AfC thinking they have to worry about it? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
********** I've never seen any evidence that content written by (suspected) paid editors presents any problems that content of the same standard written by other editors does. If an article is irredeemably spammy it should be deleted, if an article is good quality it should not - who wrote it ins't relevant. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
***********I have never seen content written by an undisclosed paid editor that was any good. Often it looks superficially accurate but when you start looking at the refs they are typically poor and many often do not support the content they are placed behind. Paid editing is trying to mislead our readers and thus it harms our encyclopedia and our reputation. Those doing it are not interested in becoming editors who contribute high quality content but simple want to promote those who pay them and will try anything to continue to do so. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 12:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
************"I have never seen content written by an undisclosed paid editor that was any good." in which case it can and should be fixed or deleted like any other bad content - that the author was (or might have been) paid is irrelevant. However, I actually suspect that there is good content produced by UPE that doesn't get noticed because it's good and doesn't actually cause any problems. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s>'''. Paid editing on Wikipedia is reaching crisis-level proportions and we need to deal with it as such. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua">&nbsp;python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder&nbsp;</span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 01:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:*'''Support option 2''' as it is more objective. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua">&nbsp;python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder&nbsp;</span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 13:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* Please explain how your suggestion relates to [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_66#New_criteria|the previous RFC]]. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 02:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*:I'm still waiting on an explanation of why we think the prior consensus has changed... would anyone care to let those persons know, also? --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
* Over half of AfC submissions are likely UPE or COI edits. This could really cut down the AfC workload. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 02:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*The way to make this criterion objective is to foist the uncertainty off on another process. To wit: the content should only be speedyable if its creator has already been indefinitely blocked as a paid editor. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 02:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

*'''Support Option 2''' as it is clear cut easy to see. I'm going to suggest we try to feed a notice about COI and UPE to every submitter of content at AfC that someone might pay for. Maybe a bot can do that. Even if it get posted to editors that are writing historic topics etc who cares because it will raise awareness without accusing them. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' particularly at AFC. It is difficult to determine whether the writer is paid or has made a disclosure. So this is not suitable for a speedy deletion. At AFC pages will be examined to see if they are promotional or not. It gives a UPE editor a chance to learn they need to disclose. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 05:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::I'm suggesting a notification system to encourage disclosure. We would only speedy drafts at AfC created by blocked UPE users. Often these drafts get worked on by sock after sock so flushing them from the system would be a good thing. Why waste my volunteer time to ensure the UPE gets his/her paycheck? Why make it easy for them to violate our rules? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 05:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' How do you tell that something was created for undisclosed payments? Idle speculation and "I think so" is not clear enough. Besides, G11 is a thing for spammy articles. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 06:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:* G11 only catches the product of the most inept UPEs. Granted, there are lots of them, but they are noisy inept UPEs that will learn how to avoid G11, and G11 leaves no record for the non-admin reviewers to refer to when they try again, and again, and again. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

* Why does no one like my [[Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product|quarantine]] idea?
:: * The suspected UPE page can't be deleted, because the reviewer rarely can know it is UPE objectively enough for any acceptable CSD.
:: * It is not worth a community discussion for every suspected UPE creation, NPP and AfC reviewers have to be trusted on this to do something.
:: * The page has to be blanked, so that the UPE is not recognized for the work in progress.
:: * The page and every version of it has to have the ugly title, including "Quarantined", so that the UPE can't even send the sponsor a version link. (Achieved by the page move)
:: * if the author can declare, or explain that the are not a UPE, then the reviewer can move the page back, no admin functions required.
: The [[Wikipedia talk:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product|quarantine proposal talk page]] has productive input on details. I think the concept is the only viable action I've seen. A CSD based on the unknowable author=UPE condition is not workable. A CSD requiring the author to be blocked will miss 99% of the problem. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::Short answer on that proposal - too complex and too much work for reviewers. A blank in place for drafts might work with a message about UPE/COI much like we do with suspected copyvio. We could make it a CSD with a delayed deletion, it only shows up in the CSD pending list after X days. That can be programmed right into the CSD template. Give the user time to disclose and remove the CSD. Otherwise bye bye. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 07:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::: It is not meant to be work for the reviewer. It is meant to be less work than giving a reviewing comment. If the concept is agreed to, everything is easily scripted.
::: You can't have a CSD for ''suspected'' UPE. Anachronist's proposal is doomed for this reason, just like the previous one last time. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

*'''Possibly support #2 delayed'''. I could entertain supporting some kind of UPE-PROD which gives these editors the chance to disclose per Legacypac above or dispute the UPE and a block based on that. After all, just because an admin has decided to block someone for UPE does not mean they are an UPE. However, I do see the problem that in most cases, such a deletion mechanism will fail due to the uncertainties surrounding UPE and how to prove it. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 08:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2''' While I agree that suspicions of UPE are not sufficient for the deletion of a page (that's why we have the {{tlx|undisclosed paid}} template), if it is confirmed that a user has been editing in violation of Wikipedia's TOU, that's a good reason for deletion. As a comparative analogy, if a user is blocked for copyright violations, we delete pages they have created which are violating copyright, and we do so regardless of whether they were created before or after the block. In this scenario, we are blocking a user for violating the TOU, and the pages that they created prior to being blocked are part of that violation - they should, therefore, be deleted. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Yunshui|<sup style="font-size:90%">雲</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|<sub style="font-size:90%">水</sub>]] 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*:I don't think that analogy is apt. If we block an editor for repeated copyright violations, we still have to check whether all their creations really fit G12 because just because they violated copyright in some cases does not mean they did so in all cases. Similarly, someone blocked for UPE does not mean all their articles were created because they were paid for it. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 08:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*::Having dealt with some large cases of copyright issues, after finding copyright violations in 10 random edits from a single user, yes large scale rollback becomes a perfectly reasonable option and one I have carried out. At this point instances that do not look like copyright violations from this individual might just mean that the source they copied from is no longer easily avaliable online rather than the content being "okay". [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support (option 2)''' - Articles written by confirmed UPEs should be speedily deleted for two reasons: 1) there is a high probability that the articles were also paid for, and 2) deleting all article created by the UPE would have the same disincentivising effect as it does for socks of blocked/banned users.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 11:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Very strong support of both options''' plus suggestions by [[User:SmokeyJoe]]. When a family of 3 plus socks are blocked and all the articles created by these socks are 1) promotional 2) barely / not notable 3) each sock makes a dozen small edits, waits a week, and then creates a perfect article in a single edit. It does not take a rocket scientist (or AI specialist) to identify this as undisclosed paid editing (and by accounts of a prior blocked user). I currently delete these articles as they are created by previously blocked users (we do not need to bury our heads in the sand). In fact all articles that follow this pattern could really be simple deleted. [[User:SmokeyJoe]] suggestions are excellent and are definitely required if we are going to allowed paid "promotional" editing to continue at all. My issue with paid editing in the type were those doing the paying have a COI regarding the subject matter in question (ie someone paying for an article about themselves or their business). The NIH/CDC paying someone to help improve articles about hearing loss for example is not an issue as the NIH/CDC do not have a COI with respect to the topic in question. They of course should not and do not work on content about the NIH or CDC itself. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 12:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
**If a family of socks are blocked then their contributions can already be deleted under G5 - why they were socking is irrelevant. The latter part of your comment just proves that paid editing (disclosed or otherwise), COI editing and promotional editing are three different issues - they are overlapping sets but all combinations of 0, 1, 2 and all 3 of them exist. If the content is bad it should be (and can be) fixed or deleted using existing processes so there is no need for this proposal; if the content is good then there is no need to delete it so there is no need for this proposal. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support Proposal 2''' - I also believe it is unjust and immensely unwise to block articles because they are believed to be from PAIDCOI editors. However I'm all for scrapping the work of confirmed paid editors. While we might actually do some collateral damage this way, it should make it much harder for the paid editor to keep doing his action as a number of his clients suddenly become grumpy. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' proposal 2 with a caveat that it is not very retrospective and only includes arrticles created from March 2018 because many upe articles that have been around for a few years have a lot of contributions from legitimate editors and the G5 criteria in practice is applied very unevenly so that some articles will be deleted no matter whether the other legitimate contributions are substantial and significant, regards [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 15:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Proposal 2, as it would include all pages they created, even those they were not paid to create. That, to me, is overreaching and suggests if an editor was paid to create one page and created 99 good pages without payment, all 100 pages are eligible for speedy deletion. That's not productive. '''Neutral''' for now on Proposal 1. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Smartyllama}} Both proposals would include all pages UPE created. The only difference is which users are covered, in proposal one it's everybody suspected to be an undisclosed paid editor (whether this is proven or not), in proposal 2 only those people who have been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing (whether proven or not). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*** In that case, '''Oppose Both''' but '''Support''' a potential third option which only includes pages the editor was actually paid to create, as those were the only edits in violation of WMF policy. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 18:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. UPEs have long been alleged to be socks at SPI. I don't know the stats, but certainly frequently they are ''not'' socks. I have no objection to some sort of proposal to add a G code for UPEs, but expanding G5 in this way would be very messy. As it is, many editors tag articles incorrectly, and there are admins that either don't understand the language of G5 or who IAR-go along with it. I suspect a new G code just for UPEs would also be messy, but let's at least keep our messes separate.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf and Bbb23. Additionally, the only valid reason for a UPE's contribs to be ''speedy'' deleted is already covered by [[WP:G11]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' unless it is limited to cases where the article "is the sole product, ignoring minor edits, of a [blocked] UPE editor or editors", per {{u|SmokeyJoe}}. I've seen plenty of blatently promotional articles rescued by uninvolved editors, and we wouldn't want to throw those babies out with the bathwater. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</span>]]) 19:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I support the general idea but this version does not restrict itself to articles created for pay. If I accept a commission to write a paid article tomorrow and don't disclose it then any article I've ever written could be deleted under this. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 20:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::::part of the point of this is to discourage people from doing just that. It wouldn't conceivably apply to you, because an editor with skill and experience and knowledge of WP, would know to declare. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::Sure, I have no desire to take up paid editing but the same principle applies. If an editor gets banned then G5 isn't used to delete everything they have ever written, even though that would be a deterrent to doing something ban-worthy. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2. ''' with the same understanding as for other G5s, that if a good-faith editor has edited it substantially, it does not apply. I have in the past tried to rescue articles of importance and clear notability even for UPEs, and this will make it more difficult, but considering the threat that they pose, it is necessary. I do point out that by adopting it we eliminate the possibility of a UPE reforming and declaring their earlier work. But this is not that much of a change, because even now they would have to declare their earlier work, tho it would not get speedy deleted. -- several such editors have contacted me, and they are not willing to declare earlier work regardless, claiming confidentiality. I would suggest proceeding very slowly withe earlier ones. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
**{{replyto|DGG}} What is the ''actual'' "threat" here that is not posed by unpaid COI edits? Why does this require speedy deletion of every article created someone we suspect of engaging in UPE - regardless of whether we are right, and regardless of whether that article was created for pay? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Unpaid COI editors are normally friends or associates or fans of the subject. They can, at best, be educated about our standards and will try to meet them and sometimes even go on to editing properly; at worst, they will quickly leave. We need to be flexible and open to potential good faith contributors. (If they're the subject in person, then it's a different problem--their sense of self-importance is involved, and they will generally become so obnoxious about it that we can quickly remove them.) Paid COI editors, the ones who are undeclared especially, almost never can be educated about our standards; they can be stopped at a particular article, but many of them seem to return indefinitely. They have no interest in being good faith editors. . (I'm usingCOI in the sense of specific interest in having a particular article , not contributing with a COI to WP generally) '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Another consideration is that COI editors are often in a better place to find sources to support an edit on the topic, given that they are connected to it. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 06:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::[[Broken windows theory]] applies to promotional articles because newbies justify their existence with [[WP:OSE]]. There's also cases where articles - they don't have to be spam, mind you - were created for [[Sales presentation|pitching to potential clients]] (who are not necessarily the subject of the article) or business development purposes. Even though these articles are not created explicitly for pay, they still need to be nuked - perhaps more urgently. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2'''. The only way to rid ourselves of this menace is to deny the spammers their product. They are not here to improve Wikipedia and we shouldn't expend more than the bare minimum of time needed to dealing with them - they can just overwhelm us with cheap labor. AFD doesn't scale very well and many UPE articles are specifically created to frustrate the notability evaluation process (e.g. by [[WP:REFBOMB]]ing). Whether they are explicitly sockpuppets or not is irrelevant - many UPE operations are sophisticated enough to evade CU and/or farm out the actual page creations to low wage/third world/freelance meatpuppets with instructions on evading detection. Quarantine should be used when UPE is merely suspected. The analogy with copyright violations is correct - it is [[WP:CV#Addressing contributors|policy that contributions of repeat infringers can be presumed to be copyvios]] and removed indiscriminately. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' any version of this. I am as strongly opposed to undisclosed paid editing, and paid editing in general, as anyone. However, no version has been proposed that is Objective and Uncontestable. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background-color:lightyellow">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|G. ツ]]</span> 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Jo-Jo Eumerus. How many of you supporters are familiar with the big box at the top of the page? Look under ''Read this before proposing new criteria'' if you're not. This proposal is neither objective nor uncontestable, especially as it's quite plausible that an article potentially deletable under this proposed criterion is beneficial to Wikipedia. We shouldn't go deleting good content merely because the creator got paid to create it: we should delete it if the content's demonstrably bad or if the situation's ambiguous, but this proposal would have us delete all paid-edit content, even when it's demonstrably good. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Unless an editor ''discloses'' that they are a paid editor, how can it objectively be known that they are? <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 03:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Content should be evaluated by its own merits, not those of its creator. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 06:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Thryduulf and Nyttend raise good points. It's impossible to quickly verify whether the article meets the proposed criteria. And if it's not quick, it's not speedy deletion. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*A wonderful, impractical dream. A criterion that, if it could be objectively and speedily enforced, would make Wikipedia a better place. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 05:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both'''. As drafted, both proposals are overly broad, capturing work that have substantial contributions by others, weren't written while blocked, weren't written for pay, and combinations thereof. It couldn't work as an extension of G5, which is specifically for pages created in violation of a user's specific block w/o substantial contributions by others. A more narrower and objective CSD criteria could work, or some PROD or quasi-PROD process might be better. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 20:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Undeclared paid editing is not even agreed to be a deletion reason. The place for this discussion is [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Undeclared Paid Editor %28UPE%29 product]]; only if UPE AfDs consistently result in SNOW deleted should this be considered as a CSD. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Thryduulf and Nyttend are right again with this one. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as per [[WP:BITE]]. Some newcomers may not know about declaring paid editing. [[User:I know the best wiki|I know the best wiki]] ([[User talk:I know the best wiki|talk]]) 15:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf's valid point. It's literally impossible to tell whether the article was a COI creation, which would ruin the point of speedy deletion. --[[User:GN-z11|<span style="font-family: Engravers MT;color: firebrick">'''GN-z11'''</span>]] [[User talk:GN-z11|<sup>'''☎'''</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/GN-z11|<sup>'''★'''</sup>]] 18:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', mostly per Thryduulf, though I like SmokeyJoe's idea. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' If the article isn't bad enough to delete G11, there should be a discussion about it, not a speedy deletion based on the author. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:Green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub><span style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</span></sub></small>]] 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CREEP]] and [[WP:FOC]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. Should be done on a case by case basis with community input, not summarily by admins. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] [[User talk:Wugapodes|[t<sup>h</sup>ɑk]]] [[Special:Contributions/Wugapodes|[ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz]]] 01:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Benjamin: "Content should be evaluated by its own merits, not those of its creator." As well, one editor with 99 good articles shouldn't have those all deleted over one undisclosed-paid one. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' For so many of the reasons listed above that it would take too long to list them all. &middot; &middot; &middot; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 06:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - For all the reasons already stated. If it doesn't qualify under G11, then not only should it get a discussion, there should be even less confidence in the identity of the supposedly conflicted creator. [[User:MarginalCost|MarginalCost]] ([[User talk:MarginalCost|talk]]) 01:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Outright deletion of content, except as already defined per CSD. UPE is unethical but there is '''absolutely no basis''' to say that the content produced as a product of UPE cannot be salvaged at all. Instead of going on a crusade against UPE, if we all improved Wikipedia (by improving UPE bs, for example) we'd be better off. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

===Alternative proposal (3)===
To remedy some of the opposers’ concerns, I propose that the following be added to the G5 bullet list in lieu of any of the above:
:In addition, because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by Wikimedia Foundation policy, articles created {{red|for pay}} by editors who have been indef-blocked for undisclosed paid editing, {{red|with no substantial edits by other users}}, are candidates for speedy deletion under G5.
(Changes from proposal 2 marked in red.) —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 21:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

*'''Support''' as proposer. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 21:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' because these conditions are impossible for a single admin reviewing a CSD nomination to determine. Also, it fails to address other problems noted above - principally lack of need and not being restricted to proven cases. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*It may be hard to tell if the article was created for pay, but if it is obvious, then this should be possible to enforce with a speedy deletion. However if other good standing editors have adopted the page or removed the speedy delete tag, then this should not be foreced, and AFD considered instead. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 02:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
**"It may be hard to tell" and "sometimes it's obvious" (without any indication of who gets to decide, using what criteria, or anything remotely objective) is exactly why this subjective assessment is has no business being anywhere near a CSD criterion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' as written, but would support if "with no substantial edits by other users" were added to keep it in line with the rest of G5. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 11:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</s>
:*This would already be a required step because it's part of the G5 requirements, but I have inserted it above for clarity. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 12:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' current version as my concerns above have been addressed. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 12:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''', although in practice, we won't ''know'' which articles have been written for pay. But I guess we'll assume the article about a company CEO was written for pay and the one about an obscure 18th century poet wasn't, and we'll get it right most of the time. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 11:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
**Sorry, but whether we "get it right most of the time" is unknowable and even if it were it wouldn't be good enough. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this too, though prefer proposal 2. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 18:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as above. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''', this one looks like has been ironed out enough. I think I would prefer a separate number for this per Bbb23's concern above, but I understand why it's bundled with G5. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 21:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. &nbsp; — <span style="font-size:115%;background-color:lightyellow">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|G. ツ]]</span> 23:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*''Support''' along with proposals 1 & 2 (with preference reflected in the proposal number). Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as this is clear and can be decided by only examining a few pages (history and user log). [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
**How? Yes it's easy to tell whether the editor is indef blocked, and not difficult to tell whether there have been significant contributions from others but how do you propose to ''reliably and objectively'' tell whether any given article was created for pay? Note that simply suspecting that it might have been is insufficient. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 10:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Just leave G5 alone, it's fine as is for quickly cleaning up ban violations, which is what it's meant for. For suspected paid editors, make a proposal to modify G11, or propose a new criterion. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*:{{re|Ivanvector}} The idea here is that undisclosed paid editors are already "banned" by default. Therefore, wouldn't it be appropriate to use G5 to clean up these ban violations also? Remember, the proposal in this section applies only to contributions of editors who have already been blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and often those blocks are by checkusers. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*::Yes, that's a common view (that undisclosed paid editors are violating an implied ban) and one I share, but it's not universal, and so it doesn't meet the "objective" requirement for new criteria. For socks of editors who are already banned by a community process, G5 already applies. As a side note, we were explicitly warned in orientation that suspicion of commercial editing is ''not'' a valid rationale on its own for the use of Checkuser - if a user is Checkuser-blocked, you can presume it's not because of undisclosed paid editing but because of some violation of policy related to multiple account abuse. They don't go hand-in-hand as often as people like to think. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Better than the above but still too subjective per Thryduulf. If this does get consensus, it should be a new criterion not under G5, which is for very clear cut violations of the user's original block/ban. If this must be under G5, then it should be restricted to very clear cut cases where someone is blocked for socking (e.g. explicitly mentioned in the block, link to SPI, Checkuserblock) after their first account was blocked for UPE. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' as not objective. Instead, to move forwards on this, introduce a tracking category on UPE AfDs, to provide evidence on what normally happens. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
:: See [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Undeclared Paid Editor %28UPE%29 product]]. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per Thryduulf. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the person who originally started all this. I like this better than my option 2 in the section above. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Thryduulf again. This is closer, but it's not there yet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - This would allow adaptive block rationales to make pages deletable, which is an abhorrent notion. <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 19:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Same as main proposal, if the article isn't bad enough to delete G11, it should go to a discussion, not be deleted due to the author. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:Green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub><span style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</span></sub></small>]] 05:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CREEP]] and [[WP:FOC]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Weak support'''. I hate G5, but paid-for spam needs to be dealt with better than it is right now. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 06:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - If paid editors can easily continue to create new articles with new accounts, they will not stop. We need to do more to actually deter paid editing before it happens. We must make it clear that if you break our rules about paid editing you cannot get away with it. [[User:Meszzy2|<span style="color: darkgreen">'''Meszzy<sup>2</sup>'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Meszzy2|'''talk''']]) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

===Another alternative (4) (or possibly, an addition) ===
''Articles written by UPE can be brought to AfD, and if the consensus is that they were written by a blocked UPE, this will be a sufficient reason for deletion, regardless of considerations of possible notability and promotionalism ''
::This way no one person gets to decide, and there is a possibility of making exceptions. The disadvantage of this is having a large number of inconclusive AfD debates, so I'm not sure of this. I'm suggesting it only as a possible alternative to see what people think. (And, of course, it is't actually just ''one'' person in Speedy. Good practice is for one person to nominate, and then a second person who is an admin to decide.)'''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:This sounds reasonable, but AFD would always have been an option. I suppose that the deletion policy is what gets changed by thgis proposal. We shouuld make it clear that in this case it is the UPE that is the only substantial contributor, to avoid the case where pre-existing articles get edited by the paid editor. (in which case ubndoing edits would be appropriate). [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 02:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Additional possibility: remove the word blocked. If we are going by consensus the consensus can decide. (There will be an additional proposal to revise blocking policy. We now often presume any upe is likely to have socked, butit would bemuch more straightforward for UPE should be stated explicitly as a reason for blocking. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
* AfD can delete any article for any reason per the consensus established in the AfD discussion. [[User:Thryduulf]] has provided a fundamental challenge. Who says ToU violation is a deletion reason? Did the WMF? Did editors decide? Links? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::We can decide. (though the discussion would have to take place at WP:Deletion Policy). We make our own policy. It would add to the list at [[WP:DEL-REASON]]. Though we ''can'' delete for any other reason also, reasons not on that list are in practice usually strongly challenged. Leaving it to individual AfDs would repeat this discussion each time, whether UPE is an acceptable reason. We need some uniformity of practice in dealing with COI contributors. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::: Wikipedians can decide, right. But not on this page. It is not even a [[WP:DEL-REASON]], so it is not even conceivable that it should be a CSD. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*Any article can be brought to AfD for any reason by any editor at any time. This proposal adds nothing to that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Yes reasonable. Helps with causes of a bunch of paid for articles by a single account. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 11:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Wrong forum''' this is not a proposal for speedy deletion so the discussion should be happening at an appropriate venue - presumably [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]]. However it is unnecessary as all you would be doing is adding a bullet point to [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion]] which duplicates existing points 1, 4, 6, 7, 13 and/or 14. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::of course it would need to be discussed at DelPolicy. And it I think ought to be viewed as a supplement to the discussion here which might use narrower criteria. For example, CSD would be blocked, AfD would be any UPE even if not yet blocked. The reasons given for deletion at DELPOLICY already overlap. It adds clarity to be specific. , whith something that can be quoted at the AfD. We do not want to add confusion to what many new users see as an already complicated and confusing process. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as above. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' AfD can choose to delete an article under existing policy for promotionalism. This just muddies the waters. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
:::AfD can only delete under promotionalism if it reaches the level that would justify a [[WP:G11]] deletion anyway. Paid Editing might cause the same problem, but it is '''not''' the same reasoning.
::::::actually, based on the last few years of decisions at AfD, Deletion for promotionalism it is interpreted more broadly. This is justified by [[WP:DEL4]], " Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content )" The CSD criterion for G11, [[WP:G11]] is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: ... This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION " The difference, as for all speedy criteria, is that is has to be unambiguous. Situations that are debatable need to be debated at AfD, and promotionalism there can be and is interpreted however the consensus decides. Many is the promotional page where I have declined G11, nominated for AfD as promotional, and seen deleted by consensus. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 17:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::'''Support with Bartlett's amendment, ''' - This is a different case to those above, and I think it is a reasonable one. It handles comments that it either isn't appropriate for a CSD standard time scale, or doesn't belong because it's too long for CSD (a somewhat tricky double argument!). Given the significant opposition primarily focused on being discussion in this forum, {{ping|DGG}}, closing this here, moving to Del Policy while both leaving a forwarding and pinging each participant in this proposal would be reasonable/wise. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 17:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::I agree with closing this here,. The discussion has moved on.'''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 17:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Wrong forum''' per above. UPE should obviously be a factor to consider at AFD that would militate towards deletion barring exceptionally good other factors (e.g. substantial, transformative contributions by others, very high quality material explicitly endorsed by other editors, etc.) but implementing changes to AFD is outside the scope of this page. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 21:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' in favor a restarting at [[WT:DEL]], should UPE be a [[WP:DEL#REASON]]? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Barkeep49, et al. This isn't a CSD proposal so is off-topic here, and it's not necessary since AfD can already delete such pages as hopelessly promotional. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' If the AFD discussion on the merits results in a keep consensus, the identity of the author should not override that. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:Green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub><span style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</span></sub></small>]] 05:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CREEP]] and [[WP:FOC]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

===Alternative wording (5)===
Here's my concept for this new criterion:

"''In addition, any articles confirmed to have been created by a confirmed undisclosed [[WP:PAID|paid editor]], are [[WP:PROMO|promotional]], and have no substantial edits by others, are subject to this criterion due to violating Wikipedia terms of service.''"

Since other proposals were said to be too broad (not counting the wrong venue proposal), I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring with this potential
wording of the new criterion for G5.

Hopefully this is short but concise enough to do. <span style="color:#B56EA4;">Kirbanzo</span> <sup>([[User:Kirbanzo|userpage]] - [[User talk:Kirbanzo|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Kirbanzo|contribs]])</sup> 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. <span style="color:#B56EA4;">Kirbanzo</span> <sup>([[User:Kirbanzo|userpage]] - [[User talk:Kirbanzo|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Kirbanzo|contribs]])</sup> 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' If the article is problematically promotional, it can already be deleted G11. If it isn't bad enough for G11, its worth discussing at AFD. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:Green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub><span style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</span></sub></small>]] 05:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Monty845. It also doesn't distinguish articles created for pay from articles created by someone who was paid to create other articles. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CREEP]] and [[WP:FOC]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


=== Alternative proposal 6 ===
I think that this would be a good reason for speedy deletion, but I think that G5 is the wrong criterion. I think that we should, in stead, add this to G11 (spam), which is directly related to the issue of undisclosed payed editing. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 15:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*{{replyto|Od Mishehu}} Please could you be specific about the wording you are proposing as there are several different formulations above "this" could refer to (and the exact wording matters at speedy deletion). However, unless your proposal addresses the reasons for opposition that are unrelated to it being part of G5 (which I think is most of them) it is very unlikely to gain consensus. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CREEP]]. There are too many half-baked proposals now and this is vexatious. No deal is better than a bad deal, eh? [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

== Update P2 proposed ==

Currently P2 says "Any portal based on a topic for which there is only a stub header article or fewer than three non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to present under the title of that portal."

However even WikiProject Portals has 20 articles as the minimum to support a portal, something that many other editors think is too low. We are now finding many portals that lack 20 articles created by various users. To save a lot of wasted MfD time let's move the 3 to 20 in this criteria. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 02:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''', because speedy deletion is intended for content that blatantly violates CSD standards, and as presently worded, the criteria is sufficient. For example, a portal with nineteen selected articles could then be speedily deleted simply because it hasn't been updated to include new content. Makes it too easy to quickly throw away the work of other editors from simply counting articles, essentially qualifying deletion via bureaucratic bean counting. Per this "nineteen article" example, such and similar portal examples would be better discussed and assessed on a case-by-case basis at [[WP:MFD]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size: x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support, but prefer a threshold of 10 non-stub articles pending a wider consensus'''. I have some sympathy with North's "nineteen article" example, and setting the limit at half that gives plenty of room for the occasional lapse, while still satisfying Legacypac's well-justified concern that too much effort is being wasted on portals with 3–10 articles.
:However, that "nineteen article" example is problematic. The minimum of 20 is a target set by the create-squillions-of-pointless-portals brigade at [[WP:WPPORT]], and I believe that community consensus would set a radically higher threshold. Insofar as that threshold of 20 is upheld, it should be regarded as the absolute rock-bottom bare minimum for a portal to survive, so editors should be aware that creating a portal without a significantly higher number of articles is placing the portal at real risk of deletion if the numbers slip.
:So while, I'd refer ten, I'd support a threshold of 20 if other editors back it ... but either way, this proposal is just an intermediate step to ease the burden of cleaning up the flood of portalspam. It should all be revisited as part of a wider discussion on what size and number and type of portals the community will support. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 04:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per NorthAmerica. This would be a good reason to discuss the portal at MfD but the higher the number the greater the chance that there will be disagreement about whether an article does fall within a topic area or not so it needs discussion. Given that there is no draft space for portals and editors who dislike the idea of portals so much that they are desperately trying everything they can think of to get as many of them deleted as they humanly can, it is very important that we take extra care not to speedy delete something that would be better merged for example. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*This isn't unreasonable. It is, however, premature. We should first find a wider consensus on how many articles are truly needed to support a portal - and I strongly suspect it will be multiple orders of magnitude higher than what the WPPORT echo chamber would like - and only then set a CSD threshold at some percentage of that. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 12:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Not yet'''. The breadth threshold for portals is already being debated in several forums. I am disappointed that those discussions have not yet reached a conclusion, but producing yet another competing standard [https://xkcd.com/927/ would not help]. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*:20 is the number the Portal fans set a long time ago. Precious few topics on Wikipedia are notable enough to have a page yet are unreleated to less than four other pages. Therefore P2 is pretty much pointless as written. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*::{{replyto|Legacypac|CoolSkittle|BrownHairedGirl|Pythoncoder|Cryptic}} As [[user:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] notes below, it is not going to be possible for a single admin to ''objectively'' determine whether a threshold above a small number (certainly less than 10) is met. This means it is inherently unsuitable for speedy deletion. It would be a good metric for a deletion discussion though, but per [[user:Certes|Certes]] it is important that if we have a threshold that we have only one, so it should be discussed at a single appropriate venue (which is not this discussion). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]], I think you misunderstand the issues here.
*:::This discussion is about criteria for ''speedy deletion''. It is quite common (even routine) to have content guidelines which set thresholds higher than the speedy deletion criteria, so there is no reason why there should be only one criterion. All that matters is that the speedy criterion extends no higher than the lower limit of the general guideline. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 10:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*::::{{ec}} {{replyto|BrownHairedGirl}} I agree that two thresholds are common, but that's not my point. I was making two spearate points - First that many of the thresholds proposed here for speedy deletion (10, 20, etc) cannot be assessed objectively by a single admin and so cannot work as a speedy deletion criterion. Secondly I was pointing out that discussions of a non-CSD threshold (which some commenters seem to be unclear is different) should be discussed elsewhere. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*::Paging through the list of portals-actually-deleted-as-P2 that I generated below, it's clear that even "3" has been entirely ignored in practice. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 10:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*:::{{replyto|Cryptic}} Do you mean that portals with more than three non-stub articles are being deleted or that ones with fewer are not being? If the criterion is being routinely abused then that deserves a separate discussion about how to resolve that - e.g. is it only one admin or multiple admins? If it's not being used, then we need to look at why (again probably a separate discussion). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*::::I meant the former, but the latter's probably true too. There hasn't been a year with more than 10 correct P2 speedies since 2007. Its original purpose - to prevent [[Portal:My meaningless little company and/or website]] - was obsolesced by the introduction of criterion G11. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 10:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with a threshold of 10 for now per BrownHairedGirl. [[User:CoolSkittle|<span style="background-color: blue; color: orange">CoolSkittle</span>]] ([[User talk:CoolSkittle|talk]]) 14:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support 10 or 20''' per BrownHairedGirl — if 20 is what the biggest portal fans (and thus people who want the lowest number of portals deleted) on this site want, it should definitely be the minimum standard for portals. This would help get rid of some of the useless nanoportals that aren't eligible for X3. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I think this could be quite difficult for an admin to quickly assess in practice. Take, for example, the late unlamented [[Portal:Spaghetti]]. In addition to an adequate main article, there's [[Spaghetti alla chitarra]], ~7 clear non-stubs under the subcat Dishes plus ~3 other borderline stub/start. I was surprised not to find that English school meal staple 'spag bog', but it's under [[Bolognese sauce]], which apparently traditionally should be cooked with flat pasta, but does talk about the spaghetti dish. Also [[Tomato sauce]], which has a classic spaghetti dish highlighted in the infobox. Also [[spaghetti sandwich]], mysteriously not categorised. There could well be many other uncategorised articles that relate to spaghetti that might be findable by search, or just by meandering through the main article & the other found articles. Then you've got peripheral (but categorised) content such as [[Spaghetti-tree hoax]], [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] & 3 related articles, plus 16 pages of metaphors relating to spaghetti. There are ingredients (well, flour). There might well be books on spaghetti, well-known manufacturers, chefs, restaurants &c. Then you've got the notion that articles in Italian might be translated or mined to expand the stubs. Does the admin press delete or not? Unless >=9/10 admins would agree, it isn't going to be viable as a speedy category. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 07:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
* Can anyone tell how many deletions happen under P2 in the last X months or years? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 07:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
** Not all that many. There's only been 449 deletions, ever, in the portal namespace that mentioned "p2" or "P2" in the log comment ([[quarry:query/34444]]). Maybe a handful more if you account for admins who don't mention the code in their deletion comment, but those are rare these days. A bunch less if you filter out the false positives ([[Portal:San Francisco Bay Area/Cities and Counties Intro]] mentions P2 only to say that's being declined as a reason, for example) and the plainly, blatantly invalid ones ([[Portal:Laser]], [[Portal:Disco]], [[Portal:Bon Jovi]], and about 60 subpages of [[Portal:Paleontology]] jumped out at me). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 09:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*The current P2 is essentially useless and unused, and could be abolished with little harm. In more than ten years of CSD patrol, I have not used it once. I can, however, imagine a good portal that navigates through only 10 pages and a gazillion images. While I support a very low bar for deletion of autogenerated crap portals, that is a different issue than the number of articles covered by a portal. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 10:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I like the effort to make P2 actually useable and would prefer an expansion of P2 over the X3 option that currently floating around. I'm also fine with 10—I could go either way. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support 10, 20 or any number up to 100'''. I'd also support expanding P2 to apply to ''semi-automatically created'' portals with fewer than 100 pages, or portals with fewer than 100 ''notable topics'' under their scope, if either suggestion would garner more support. This threshold is still tiny and the vast majority of useless portals we have would not fail it. Given how incredibly low readership is for portals, and given that Wikipedia is written for readers, there's no point in us hosting portals on topics with so few pages under their scope. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' (he/him) <sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]</sub></span> 22:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Bilory}} How on earth do you propose to quickly, reliably and objectively (all required) determine whether there are 10 "notable topics" (definition please) within a portal's scope? For example would [[Trolley pole]], [[Tunnelling shield]] and [[The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers]] be within the scope of a [[Portal:Railway infrastructure]]? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

::::No one has been arguing it is impossible to quickly, reliably and objectively deturmine if 3 related articles exist. 10 or 20 is just a slightly higher number. If you believe the entire CSD is unworkable and has been that way for years make that point instead. This CSD should be used to clear the most crappy narrow portals. If there are not 20 bird species in a family for the Portal, Portal fails the test. If a writer has a head article article and articles on two books, writer fails the test. It's not that hard. Most of us can count to 10 or 20 and the Admin who feels incapable of making the assessment can leave it for an Admin who is more capable. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Example: new [[Portal:Skunks]] which stinks. There are only 12 kinds of skunks so would fail P2=20. The 12 species are linked from the nav box and the portal and easy to count. The portal, complete with a contextless unlabeled chemical bond chart, adds nothing to [[skunks]], it is just a detour from the useful article. Even more clear cut, a portal on [[Western spotted skunk]] would have zero other articles and fail P2 as written now. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, it is almost always going to be easy to find (or not find) three articles that objectively fall within a portal's scope, however this is not the case infinitely and so a cut-off has to be drawn somewhere at a point that it will be possible to determine objectively in all cases. Taking your skunks example, there are 12 types of skunk, but there are also [[list of fictional skunks]], [[Enchantimals]], [[Pepé Le Pew]], [[Pogo (comic strip)]], [[Punky Skunk]], [[Stinkor]], [[Skunks as pets]], [[Mephitis (genus)]] and [[Brachyprotoma obtusata]], meaning there are 21 articles at least. Now you might argue that some of those shouldn't count - but that's the point, e.g. whether fictional skunks count as within the scope of a portal on Skunks is subjective (meaning the criteria fails the objectivity requirement). In this case though I would suggest that [[Portal:Skunks]] be merged into a [[Portal:Mephitidae]] or [[Portal:Musteloidea]] (meaning the criteria fails the incontestable requirement). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::This, I think, is the crux of the thing. Once you get past a limit of a few (say, for example, three), it becomes time consuming and subjective, which makes for a bad CSD criterion. Once something becomes slow, subjective, or complicated enough that the typical sysop might not be guaranteed to do the same thing every time, it's better to use a more deliberative process like XfD where these cases can be discussed. The problem here is not with P2, but rather with the recent spate of portal creation. We can deal with that without complicating P2. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 19:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::The portal links to [[:Category:Skunks]] and [[:Category:Fictional skunks]], which in total contain 31 articles. This is an objective criterion that could be used. And if a category doesn't exist for a topic then we certainly don't need a portal on it. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' (he/him) <sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]</sub></span> 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::And [[Portal:Skunks]] shows no evidence of including fictional skunks in the scope so that is a big stretch. The lede article does not mention fictional skunks. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::You're making my point for me: There is no consensus whether the portal does or should include fictional skunks, therefore it is not objectively and uncontestably determinable how many articles are within the scope and so it is unsuitable for speedy deletion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' portals usually link to at least one category to establish the scope of the portal, so it should usually be fairly unambiguous how many articles are in scope. If there is no category then there aren't likely to be many articles in scope. The ambiguity argument doesn't seem to have prevented P2 from working up to now either. Three articles is far too small a scope for an effective portal and is below even the standard used by the relevant Wikiproject. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*:Sure, but the CSD criteria aren't designed to catch everything for deletion, only the most obvious/egregious/clear-cut cases. A3 or A7, for example, don't set a low a bar for an effective article because they don't define what makes a good article, just an obvious example of something that doesn't. Similarly, a portal relating to 4 or 11 or 21 articles may well be deleted just as so many articles that do no qualify for A3 or A7. Setting an overly strict standard to ensure the community has their say doesn't mean the criteria are ineffective, it's by design. At any rate, I'm open to the idea that three is too few to be make a valuable criterion, but I continue to think the real issue will be slowing down reviewers. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*::Not only are categories useful for gauging the scope of portals, they are [[Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines#Required|required portal items]]. If there is no category, then the portal shouldn't have been created in the first place because it can't contain all the items required for a portal. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">–&nbsp;[[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 16:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Amorymeltzer]] what reviewers? Do you mean portal creators? I'm happy with a low bar but obviously 1:1 Portal:Article is too low. 1:3 is also effectively meaningless. Many of the past P2 tags look like blank pages or tests so could have been speedy deleted G2 or other ways. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 00:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
::Sorry; I meant reviewers as in people reviewing the CSD itself aka sysops. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per Northamerica1000 and Thryduulf. I concur that increasing the availability of speedy deletion will be at the expense of the alternatives to deletion that can be considered at MfD. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose, but expand PROD to include portals''' so that these uncontroversial cases of deletion can be made via the PROD process. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 01:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Northamerica1000, et al. Also, there is no evidence that MfD is failing to get the job done, including with mass nominations. Extant process is sufficient. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the group. 3 is a reasonable objective threshold. There is a significant range of grey area above that level in which portals are unlikely to be kept after a discussion to evaluate their merits, but each one should be evaluated in a discussion, not deleted or not deleted under the selective evaluation of individual administrators. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', three is reasonable. I also want to point out '''to all commenters here''' that Legacypac is also simultaneously trying to delete portals with well over 20 articles inside here: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California]]. These two discussions are inherently related, and should have been disclosed together. [[User:Ɱ|<span style="text-shadow:#bbb 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;" class="texhtml">'''ɱ'''</span>]] [[User talk:Ɱ|(talk)]] 17:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
::Says the editor who claims portal guidelines don't apply to his portal and he does not need to follow them. Follow his link. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[User:Ɱ]]. Also, there is no need to speedy delete a portal with less than 20 articles. Making the threshold that high would lead to speedy deletion for portals currently under construction. 3 to 20 is a good range for grey area that should not result in simple speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is not means to address grey area portals. [[User:PointsofNoReturn|PointsofNoReturn]] ([[User talk:PointsofNoReturn|talk]]) 19:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
::No it would not. The number of articles within the scope exists before someone even starts a portal. If a portal has only 5 or 10 articles within the scope it should not be created or exist. See [[WP:POG]]. This is not a gray area. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 22:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
:::While it is probable that such portals will be deleted it is not certain as it is not always clear exactly which articles are in scope and which are not - see for example the difference of opinion regarding whether fictional badgers are within scope of the badgers portal - and adjusting the scope is an alternative to deletion that will be appropriate in some cases - e.g. a portal about [[Brian May]] is unlikely to have enough articles in scope but a portal about [[Queen (band)]] is more likely to be, but then are articles related to May's scientific career within scope? These are questions that cannot be answered by a single administrator acting alone. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per {{u|Northamerica1000}} and others above. Could lead to unwarranted deletions. There are valid alternatives. --[[User:Crystallizedcarbon|Crystallizedcarbon]] ([[User talk:Crystallizedcarbon|talk]]) 20:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' An "underpopulated" portal is akin to a stub article. Everything has to start somewhere, and the requirement that everything has to be a fully complete, finished, product before it can be published is completely opposite to how Wikipedia works. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 11:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Andy Gibb]], a portal with 19 articles at the time of nomination, has attracted good-faith recommendations to keep, further demonstrating that expanding P2 to cover portals with fewer than 20 articles fails the uncontestable requirement for speedy deletion criteria. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

== Mentioning the requirements for new criteria in an edit notice? ==

There are plenty of examples of people on this page proposing new criteria or commenting on proposals for new criteria who seem unfamiliar with the requirements (Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, Non-redundant) detailed in [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header|the page header]]. To help reduce this (especially for those who arrive via a link to a section), how about adding a slimmed down version of the header in an edit notice, linking to the header for full details?
Perhaps something like:
{{divbox|plain||
'''Before proposing or commenting on new or expanded criteria''' note that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be:
*'''Objective''': Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion.
*'''Uncontestable''': Almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus.
*'''Frequent''': If a situation arises only rarely, it's usually easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it at the normal venue.
*'''Nonredundant''': If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that.
''Note this is a summary of the requirements, see [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header]] for details.
}}
}}
Although it might be possible to condense it still further - the point is to alert not overwhelm, and other improvements are almost certainly possible as well. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
* Suggest Speedy closing proposals that clearly fail the new criterion criteria, and Speedy close CSD proposals that are not even accepted reasons for deletion. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
** I wouldn't object to that in general, although in some cases they only need a slight tweak and in others speedy closing will be a lot of drama (especially I think anything related to UPE). I don't think that's incompatible with my suggestion though. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning here that I've just created a new shortcut to the header listing the the requirements: [[WP:NEWCSD]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*Fails #4, redundant to the header.{{pb}}I don't think it's a matter of not noticing the new-criteria criteria. (And if it is, the first step is to remove the irrelevancies distracting from it - we absolutely don't need a "don't delete WP:CSD, we copied some text out of it four years ago" box; we don't need the "be polite and sign your posts" box; and the archive lists doesn't need to be full-width.) What we've been seeing lately is A) legitimate disagreement over whether criteria meet NEWCSD, and B) a suicidal headlong rush to vote on everything. B exacerbates A, because there isn't time to hammer out the obvious amendments that make a proposal meet NEWCSD before some dolt's plastered it all over CENT and started a formal RFC, and then we suddenly have four competing proposals for people to vote against without even fully reading. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 14:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*:I should hope I'm not a dolt because you're making that statement as a general comment. ;) --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 14:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*:The purpose is very much to complement the header, for people who don't see it and/or read it, that's why it explicitly summarises it and links to it for full details. It's very much not redundant to it. The excessive number of proposals being made (sometimes on the wrong page - e.g. the X3 proposal at AN) without understanding the requirements is why we need to make it more in-your-face. And just like when evaluating a page against the criteria, if there is good faith disagreement about whether a proposal meets the requirements for a new criterion it doesn't. If people disagree whether something is objective it clearly isn't. If people disagree whether everything that covered by the criterion should be deleted then it is not uncontestable. The "we copied text" box is needed for proper attribution - see [[WP:CWW]]. The archives box though could be made less prominent, but I'm not sure it would make that much difference. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Strongly support''' making such an editnotice. The vast majority of proposals at this page fail at least one of these obvious criteria, and it's a drain on editorial time. One of those "{{abbr|RtFM|read the f...riendly manual}}" things. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - clearly an improvement. If rule #4 prevents us from implementing this obviously helpful advice, [[WP:IAR|ignore the rule]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Given the comments above I have added an edit notice ([[Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]]). Please tweak it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


== Expand A3 to all namespaces except draftspace (A3 -> G15)==


I believe A3 can apply to things like a template that looks like this:
{{Navbox
| name = Scams and confidence tricks
| title = [[Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense|Patent Nonsense]]
| state = {{{state|<includeonly>autocollapse</includeonly>}}}
| listclass = hlist


Hi. I'm proposing that a new criteria be added for speedy deletion of drafts, which are duplicated by an existing, rejected draft. Any thoughts? <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
| group1 = NONSENSE
: Just redirect rather than deleting. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 04:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
| list1 =
:'''[[WP:SRE]]'''. Rejected draft? Redirect to the rejected draft. Do not review, using AfC tools or otherwise, a content fork. If your redirecting is reverted, take it to MfD. Only MfD could generate compelling data to support a [[WP:NEWCSD]] for draftspace, like it did for G13. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
* [[OFDIOFEIGAAAGAAAGAAAALEFFEFEEEEEWDPLDWLP#U(R)IR)#(U)(Fu09)U(fu9r0309uwr)(U(R)R)U(]]
:I agree with the others here. Redirecting requires no criterion and usually works. Same for drafts that duplicate an existing article (and are not someone actively working on an improvement to that article). —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 08:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
* [[Education Program:AAAAAAAAGPATENTNoNseNSEASORWWKOD())(())(()()()())((disambiguation)]]
:This isn't necessary. If it's a duplicate of another draft just redirect or merge them, if it's a duplicate of an article (and not an attempt to improve it) then redirect to that article. If it's actively causing problems for some reason, and doesn't somehow meet an existing criterion, then explain that at MfD. In every other case, doing anything other than waiting for G13 is a waste of time and effort. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
* [[DRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFT:DRAAAAAAAAAAAAAFT]]
{{abot}}
* [[WP:WP:WP:WP]]
* [[Gadget Definition Talk: ADJFIERWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!ZZZ]]

| group2 = NONSENSICAL NONSENSE
| list2 =
* [[Help:I've fallen and I can't get up!]]
* [[Meta:Meta:Meta:Meta:Meta:Meta:Meta:Meta:Meta:]]
* [[User:Willy on Wheels]]
* [[Template:Db-Д904]]
}}

Obviously, this would be deleted per G1, but if it weren't nonsense, it couldn't be deleted, as A3 doesn't apply to templates at the moment. I also have a potential template [[Draft:Db-G15|here]]. <span style="width:140px;height:20px;background-color:#023;color:#0EE;font-family:mono;text-align:center;">[[User:InvalidOS|<span style="color:#0EE;font-size:16px;">InvalidOS</span>]][[User talk:InvalidOS|<span style="color:#DE0">talk</span>]]</span> 17:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' An empty page is still an empty page but I don't expect it will be used much though since new users rarely create pages in other namespaces. I'm assuming you also exclude user space. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 17:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

* A3 should apply to all name spaces except Userspace. Mostly this would simplify how we deal with Drafts. We see a lot of pages in Draft, including many but not all pages found in [[:Category:AfC submissions declined as a test]], [[:Category:AfC submissions declined as lacking context]], and [[:Category:AfC submissions declined as blank]] that meet A3. Usually a G2 test CSD is accepted by Admins for the blank pages but that is not a fully intuitive application of G2. A3 is clearer and this change would bring consistency. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Patent nonsense is already G1, test pages are already G2 and G7 covers pages blanked by the author, which would seem to cover most of these cases (fails the "non-redundant requirement of [[WP:NEWCSD]]). Lack of context is not a reason to delete a draft - this can be added. There is no evidence presented that there is any reason why these drafts need to be deleted before they're eligible for G13 and there is no evidence presented that problematic pages in other namespaces are overwhelming normal deletion processes (fails the "frequent" requirement). Simply expanding A3 to other namespaces would catch a lot pages in user, template, Wikipedia and portal namespaces that have no content of the type the criterion mentions but are nevertheless useful pages - including most noticeboards, reference desks, the help desk TOC templates, navboxes, template testcases, etc, etc, (stupendous failure of the "uncontestable" requirement). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
::Your opinons on CSDs such as X3 show you lack the ability to present factual or logical points around CSDs. This is no better. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the unnecessary ad hominem. Would you now like to address the actual points I made or would you rather stick with personal attacks? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
:I don't see how [[WP:A3]] applies really to that template (if it were less nonsense it could be a valid navbox template); I'd think [[WP:G3]] would cover it. ([[WP:G1]] may not even really apply since there are portions of the template that are understandable) [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - G1 wouldn't apply because that's clearly intended to be a template (exempted per "if you know what it is, G1 doesn't apply") but it ''is'' G3 obvious vandalism, and if not then it's G6 "this is obviously going to be deleted"/[[WP:IAR]], and interestingly this might have been a use case for the long-deprecated T1. I would also strongly consider blocking the creator and then deleting this per G5, but that's specific to this particular example. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I don't really get it. [[WP:A3]] is for lack of content. The example you give has content. So why would it be covered by a G-A3 criterion? Also, what Thryduulf said. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 21:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'd have thought many perfectly legitimate article talk pages would fall into the scope of such an A3. Here is one I created: [[Talk:Dudley Wolfe]]. Now, I know most people nominate for CSD appropriately but some do not and a couple of administrators delete all CSD nominations they come across on the basis that they'll later restore any that are shown to be wrong. It's quicker like that. This would be disruptive and overwhelmingly unsuitable as a changed CSD criterion. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 21:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - something like this is already covered under existing CSD criteria (G2 or G3 usually, but depending on circumstance other criteria like G5 or G10 would apply) and a lack of content on the page is to be expected for userpages that have been blanked (courtesy or otherwise). —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', far too wide-reaching, and no obvious flood of pages that MfD/TfD can't delete quickly enough. I probably don't need [[User:Kusma/AJH]] anymore, but it was a useful page containing only external links that once helped me write an article. Why should pages like that (many of them exist in user space, as a WikiProject subpage, as a Portal subpage, probably in many other places) suddenly become speedy-deletable? If they are not in article space, they do not cause embarrassment and may actually be helpful for writing an encyclopaedia. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 21:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

== [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] now logs user-inputted options and should better handle noms in module space ==

This is about CSD tagging and not the criteria themselves, but just FYI if attempting a CSD of a Module, Twinkle should now place the tag on the documentation subpage, like is supposed to be done at [[WP:TfD]]. Also, the CSD log will now include the user-inputted options, like user for G5 or xfd for G6. Other recent changes [[Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Latest updates — 2019-04-03 (repo at 26305a2)|here]]; please let me know if there are any issues! ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 15:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion of modules ==

Hi. There have been a number of times when I've tried to tag modules for deletion. The tag goes on the doc page, and doc page gets deleted, but the actual module isn't. Can an admin please delete [[Module:User:Xinbenlv bot/msg/inconsistent birthday]] per [[WP:CSD#G7]]. Separately, is there a better way to communicate to admins that, despite the tag being on the documentation page, the module itself is the target of the deletion request? --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 00:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:You can use a custom rationale on most tags. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:Ask a friendly admin directly - preferably one who works in module space, so they know how to verify it's not being used. Failing that, to make it clear you're not talking about the doc page itself, you can either enclose the speedy deletion template in &lt;includeonly&gt; tags, or manually categorize it into [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] with some explanatory text. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Cryptic}} okay, thanks --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 00:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

== G6 for post-merge delete? ==

The Twinkle CSD menu includes G6 for ''An admin has closed a deletion discussion ... as "delete" but they didn't actually delete the page'', but this isn't listed as a use case under [[WP:G6]]. I propose adding another bullet point:
* Deleting a page per an XfD close which specified deletion but didn't perform it.
Any objections? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 14:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:PS, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith&oldid=891224505#Brownhills_West_(Midland_Railway)_railway_station this discussion] for background. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 15:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::That's already in there; fourth bullet point in the "templates" section of G6:
{{talk quote|* {{Tlp|1=Db-xfd|2=fullvotepage=''link to closed [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion discussion]]''}} <small>- For pages where a consensus to delete has been previously reached via deletion discussion, but which were not deleted.</small>
}}
::It's also in the main section, though I do suppose it says {{tq|... as the result of a consensus at '''WP:TfD'''.}} I suppose this could be modified to just read "XfD". [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I believe that's because non-admins can close TfDs as delete, but not other XfDs. [[User:Ansh666|ansh]][[User talk:Ansh666|<span style="font-size:80%">''666''</span>]] 22:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
::::The particular case here (as described in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith&oldid=891224505#Brownhills_West_(Midland_Railway)_railway_station discussion on my talk page]), was I closed an AfD as (essentially), ''Merge, then delete''. As is common in merge closes, I left the actual merge for somebody else to execute. In this case, the merge was done by {{U|Nthep}}, who is an admin and was able to delete the page after they were done merging. They used [[WP:G6]] as the reason. But, in theory, the merge could have been done by a non-admin, and then tagging the page for G6 deletion would have made sense.
:::::"Merge and delete" is almost never a valid outcome, since [[WP:CWW|attribution is needed]] for a merge. [[User:Ansh666|ansh]][[User talk:Ansh666|<span style="font-size:80%">''666''</span>]] 17:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::In general, I agree with you. It almost always makes sense to "Merge and redirect". In fact, I think it made sense to do that in this case too, but as the closing admin, my job is to summarize the discussion, not cast a supervote. So, let's for the moment, assume we have a valid "Merge and delete" outcome. What's the best way to implement that? -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 23:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Move the history to another existing redirect that doesn't have history that needs preserving. There's some alternatives at [[WP:Merge and delete]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 00:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Lazy catchall. If the deletion is authorised by an XfD, use “deleted per [the XfD]”, not per G6. G6 should never be used for pages with a nontrivial history, and G6 post merge sounds like a terrible violation of that. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
: Fix twinkle. Twinkle documentation errors should be fixed, not policy altered to suit twinkle documentation. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
*Two things. First, the list under G6 isn't exclusive, i.e. those are not the ''only'' reasons that G6 may be used. Tagging a page under G6 where the XfD for that page was closed as delete is fairly obviously "uncontroversial maintenance", so there isn't a need to add a bullet point. Second, tagging a page as G6 for an AfD result of merge - even if the nominator recommends deletion post-merge, which should frankly never be done for attribution reasons - would no longer be ''uncontroversial'' by default, and therefore shouldn't be done. [[User:Ansh666|ansh]][[User talk:Ansh666|<span style="font-size:80%">''666''</span>]] 22:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
*I'm with SmokeyJoe. If you're deleting something because of a deletion discussion, that deletion discussion is tautologically the reason for deletion. It's not a speedy deletion, and shouldn't be labelled as one. It ''especially'' shouldn't be labelled as a G6, which is intended for cases where there's both no non-temporary loss of content, and no controversy whatsoever. (Before someone brings it up, for G4, you're speedying it because of similarity to previously-deleted content, not directly because of the previous deletion discussion.) —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 00:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:53, 20 May 2024

Improper disambiguation redirects

First RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Procedural close. Per WP:PGCHANGE, this discussion was required to be widely advertised; it was not. Editors are encouraged to participate on the follow-up RfC below. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


For a while now WP:RFD has been flooded with nominations for redirects that a missing a space between the term and the opening parenthesis of a disambiguator (e.g. Constantine(video game) and Scaramouche(1952 film)), see for example sections 17 to 35 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31, sections 17 to 57 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1, and similar in the days leading up to them. These discussions invariably end up being deleted uncontroversially, and the number of discussions is causing issues for RfD (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Can we reduce the number of RfDs transcluded on this page?). Accordingly I propose a new speedy deletion criterion R5:
Redirects with no space before a parenthetical term, e.g. "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, e.g. 501(c)(3)

  • Before nominating a redirect under this criterion:
    • Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
    • Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version.
  • This criterion does not apply if the redirect is the result of page move made less than 30 days ago, but criteria R3 and/or G6 may apply.

The rationale for the last bullet is to allow time for mirrors, etc. to catch up. If the page was moved and then immediately moved again, or created at this title then quickly moved then this title was obviously created in error and G6 applies. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd support this. As you said, it's been an ongoing issue and the discussions end the same way every time. It's adding unnecessary bureaucracy when the outcome is clear from the beginning. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – these are among the most straightforward closes I regularly encounter at RfD, and they aren't adequately covered by R3 and G6. Complex/Rational 13:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would also support coverage of other obvious typographical errors, such as disambiguators missing a closing paren. BD2412 T 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent large discussion I found about missing closing parentheses was very controversial as they were working around an external link problem. I can't remember what the outcome was in the end but it was relisted a couple of times, so not at all suitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started trying to track past nominations such as these and I have 3 bulk nomination links saved in my notes for these types of redirects. They're for February, 2019, April, 2019, and October, 2022, the most recent of which was contentious. I'm sure you already know Thryduulf, but I thought I'd share the links for reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I would title it "Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguator" to define the scope. If not then things like 501(c)(3) absolutely will be carelessly tagged and deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. I think that's a good differentiation to make. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why aren't these R3's? Is it just that we're only now working through a backlog of very old ones that nobody noticed before? What happens when those are gone? And would a database report to detect new ones help? —Cryptic 17:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the ones that have been nominated recently have been around for over a decade. I guess a database report wouldn't harm. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very preliminary version at quarry:query/80153. Very many false positives still, chemical names in particular, and it's not immediately obvious how to filter them out without introducing false negatives. I'd hope that most wouldn't be interpreted as a disambiguator, but I'm sure someone would eventually carelessly speedy ones like Chromium(III), and I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find ones of the much-more-common sort like Dysprosium(III) nitride tagged db-r5 either.
    What I'm not seeing are recently-created ones. The current most recent is Deportivo Toluca F.C.(women) from January 13, and the next most recent is Fletcher Ladd(justice) from December 14. Unless RFD has been very diligent about deleting recently-created ones in particular recently - has it? - this suggests to me a backlog we can hope to eventually clear rather than an ongoing and permanent problem. —Cryptic 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked your query to just filter out the articles, which got the total down to 12.2k. If it helps, Dcirovic seems to have created 900+ of the redirects that appear in the query. I expect that they're legit ones which could be removed. I also noticed that your list is including redirects that contain "-(", which could be something to look at to trim it a bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Filtering out non-redirects is good if you're looking for more to bring to RFD, or potentially speedy. It's not so good in the context of this discussion (since it also filters out redirects currently at RFD, since they're not technically redirects while tagged) or in an ongoing database report (we'd want to see pages created at or moved to titles like these as soon as they happen, not just after someone else happens to notice them, moves them back, and doesn't deal with the redirect).
    You can reasonably go further than just eliminating -( by looking specifically for a letter- or digit-like character before the paren, as in quarry:query/80157. Again, if I were watching a date-ordered report, I'd rather see them show up than risk missing a false negative - it misses Deportivo Toluca F.C.(women) from above, for example. —Cryptic 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even just removing '-(' is going to filter out redirects we should deal with, like Hurdling-(horse race). —Cryptic 21:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the flavor of SQL being used here and I don't have Quarry access but could it stand to have something along the lines of AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 'X' FROM page otherpage WHERE otherpage.page_title = REPLACE(page.page_title, '(', ' (')? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WMF-run wikis are backed by MariaDB, a MySQL fork. You (and anyone else with a registered account) do have Quarry access, if you care; click "Login" from the upper right and it'll bounce you through meta. And, again, that sort of refinement is going to result in many false negatives - this time, it'll find pages that haven't been partially dealt with (by someone creating the properly-disambiguated title), but miss cases where someone saw a page at Acme(widget manufacturer) and moved it to Acme (widget manufacturer) without dealing with the leftover redirect. —Cryptic 20:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That right there is one of the largest groups of false positives I've found: Valid chemistry-related titles with parentheses without spacing before/after parentheses. Thus .. my reservations about making this a CSD. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (For what it's worth, here's the regex query I've developed over time that reduces the amount of chemistry-related false positives: [^ 0-9:\-\)]\([^0-9\-\)][^\)]. (Search using this regex [takes a bit to load]) However, it also doesn't allow any numbers directly after a "(" which will make "bad" disambiguators that start with years not appear in the list either.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Well, I just tried my own regex a few times, and even that list on 20 titles has like 2–3 false positives. Over the years, trying to write the perfect regex to reduce false positives has been rather difficult.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943 What we could do is tag chemistry redirects with a proper redirect category and then exclude the redirect template or category from the query. This way future editors will also know that these aren't fit for speedy deletions. Gonnym (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it seems to pass most of the NEWCSD requirements, objective, as noted all discussions seem to today result in deletion with most people agreeing, uncontestable, there is a clear consensus today to delete these, frequent, although it may become less frequent if newer ones are caught and deleted under R3 other namespaces and if future ones get missed (and some in other namespaces not yet checked as all from what I can remember have been namespace redirects but there will probably be such redirects in other namespaces) will be needed, nonredundant, as noted while many newer ones can be deleted under R3 older ones can't and although it could already be argued these can be deleted under G6 it would probably be more sensible for the same reason G14 was split to have a separate criteria. In terms of consensus etc in previous years such redirects were kept often per WP:CHEAP, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 26#Burn (Scotland but in more recent years such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" the consensus has changed namely that such redirects are WP:COSTLY. I would put one condition here, that the redirect doesn't have any article content history currently at the title (as opposed to from a move) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 30#Montblanc(ffta) for example was an article so as a sub topic the history should probably be moved to Montblanc (ffta) (and the resulting redirect could then be deleted under R5) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#Musa(name) which has significant history. When it comes to such redirects they should in some cases be moved to the correct title, in some cases should be restored and sent to AFD and in some cases are simply duplicates which means that if they only contain nonsense etc or don't contain any significant content not in the target they don't need to be kept and could have been deleted as A10 if they hadn't been redirected.
  • I also think we should cover "(Disambiguation)" redirects like London (Disambiguation) per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. I would also support incorrectly capitalized qualifiers like Morbius (Film), see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Morbius (Film) but the consensus seems to be weaker. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excluding redirects that have history as an article would seem best as there aren't so many of them that RfD would be overwhelmed and the best course of action is not always the same. As for "improperly" capitalised disambiguators, the consensus that these are bad is weak and (from my biased perspective) getting weaker so they definitely shouldn't be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised those capitalizations were deleted. I don't personally support that as alternative capitalizations are typically valid redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think capitalization redirects with incorrect qualifiers are useful as users are very unlikely to use incorrect Wikipedia qualifiers, see WP:UNNATURAL and for internal searchers they would get to the correct place anyway. These redirects do inconvenience editors though.
    @Thryduulf: Would something like This criteria does not apply to any redirect that has non-redirect content (such as being a separate article or template etc) at the current title's history unless the page would qualify for speedy deletion (such as A10 or G1) if restored. If the page was redirected more than a month ago then the page can be moved to the correct title without redirect or the resulting redirect deleted immediately under this criteria. This would clarify that redirects like Montblanc(ffta) could not be deleted by this criteria but because it was redirected ages ago it could be moved to Montblanc (ffta) without redirect or the redirect speedily deleted. While I don't really agree with you that article content can't be deleted at RFD I don't think article content should be speedily deleted under R5. And cases like say Musa(name) that have history that can't easily be moved would still go to RFD but as you say there aren't many of these case so shouldn't be a problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree with the concept in your second paragraph, but the wording isn't the clearest (I had to read it multiple times to be clear about what you mean). I've not got time right now to improve it though. Your first paragraph is almost completely backwards - they do help and don't hinder - (UNNATURAL is a mix of correct, debatable and incorrect) but as this is something good faith editors disagree about it fails the uncontroversial requirement for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wondering if this would make more sense as X3. Recently created redirects which match the description of the proposed R5 fall under R3; once the "backlog" has been cleared this would seem redundant (NEWCSD#4). I think RfD can handle the occasional term(dab) that makes it past NPR without getting nominated for R3. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 08:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly support X3 and oppose weakly support R5. Once the backlog is cleared, it will be redundant (i.e. fail WP:NEWCSD4) to R3; RfD will be able to handle the occasional redirect that makes it through the R3 window. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) EDITED 00:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my previous discussion with Thryduulf. As I noted there, RfD has continued to be inundated with RDAB redirects, so I do think a CSD criterion is warranted. I would also support expanding the scope to cover the other types of errors mentioned at RDAB (I can live with capitalization differences being exempted, if others agree with Thryduulf that they are not uncontroversial), including (disambiguation, ((disambiguation), (disambiguation) (disambiguation), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Missing closing parentheses were controversial last time they were discussed en mass so are not suitable for speedy deletion. I don't recall seeing any of the others at RfD recently. Ø (Disambiguation) (disambiguation) is the only page I can find "(disambiguation) (disambiguation)", and that's a {{R from merge}} so likely needs to be kept. As of the 21 November dump of page titles (the most recent I have downloaded) there were no instances of "((disambiguation" or "disambiguation))". Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Andrew Sinclair (privy councellor and etc., Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Bonaparte's Retreat (Disambiguation), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Islamic Resistance in Iraq (Disambiguation ), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Terminal value (philosophy/, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Chen Mingyi (Taiwan), etc. You can easily find more cases of RDAB via regex search, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while I like the idea; I don't think this will reduce the load on RfD. Maybe what is needed is a proposed deletion process. I think we can expand WP:PROD to include redirects. Awesome Aasim 19:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see User_talk:176.33.241.125#Can you group all your misspaced parentheses RfDs into one nomination? where I give a kind request for all the similar redirects to be in one nomination to make discussion easier to follow. Awesome Aasim 19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From memory, a PROD for redirects has been rejected previously and I oppose it now. PROD only works for pages that are reasonably well watched, but very few redirects are watched other than by their creators (and not even always then) so PRODed redirects are unlikely to be seen. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think extending the PROD duration and maybe having a bot update the list of PRODded redirects periodically would solve this problem? Awesome Aasim 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I disagree that PROD won't work for pages not well watched; we have maintenance categories where people can review PRODs and reject them if they disagree. Awesome Aasim 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PROD only works for pages that are reasonably well watched: it was my impression that PROD is used largely by new page patrol, so that wouldn't be the case. No? Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think PROD should be available to all types of pages but that's a different discussion. In any case these redirects shouldn't be left to clutter the search etc for 7 days. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These RfD end the same and are basically just a waste of editorial time and take time away from the other nominations. Gonnym (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Utopes just sent another batch of redirects to RfD today, so pinging them here. Also pinging @Steel1943, who previously nominated several RDAB redirects, and notifying 176.33.241.125 on their talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the tip! I didn't even realize this was a discussion taking place when I sent those, will leave a comment now. 👍 Utopes (talk / cont) 20:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm concerned drive-by admins will delete redirects that look like disambiguation issues when the title is actually valid (false positives). Examples: BSc(Hons) (currently nominated at RFD) and JANET(UK) (apparently, a valid alternative/former name for its target [see its edit history for my back-and-forth edits on this].) Yeah, given my level of participation in these redirects, one would think I would be supporting this ... but not so much since I'm concerned administrators may not get it right the first time when enforcing such a speedy deletion criterion, which has a potential to cause harm to the encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Create a temporary criterion "X3" until the numbers get low enough to where it can be reasonably appealed. Thinking about this, turns out I'm okay if this is the chosen path, given that I think "X" criteria tend to make admins do a double take and research the redirect's history prior to deleting the redirect. Seems like such a situation could appease all parties. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stuffed the (full, unfiltered) results into subpages of User:Cryptic/Improper disambiguation redirects, and am going to spend a few hours classifying them - maybe all of them, but at least the first subpage which has the thousand most recent. Yes, even the relatively-easy-to-detect chemical ones. A problematic case with two examples has already jumped out at me (maybe the same sort as Steel1943's above, I haven't looked at them) - CPUSA(PW)/CPUSA(P) and PCd'I(ml). Would the advocates of this criterion speedy those? And if not, how are they excluded by this wording? —Cryptic 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two should be excluded as they "will [be] correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces" - determined by them being listed in bold in the target article without spaces. PCd'I(ml) does not appear to be correct - the article uses the acronym spaced and every unspaced google hit seems to relate to this redirect, so would be correctly speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No confidence that some heathen who thinks there should be a space before the param list of function prototypes won't use this as an excuse to speedy int main(void). —Cryptic 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if I create the list, and improper disambiguation does not affect some titles like 501(c)(3) and chemical names like Cadmium(I). 176.33.241.125 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Such redirects are almost invariably getting deleted at RfD – I haven't found a single nomination in the last 30 days that closed as anything other than "delete", though BSc(Hons) seems headed to "keep". – This proposal will probably reduce the backlog and editor workload considerably. My only issues are the potential misuse/careless use of the criterion, hence why I would additionally support a listing of major exceptions (chemical names come to my mind but there are others). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but would love to support a criteria that can be used to clean these. From what I've seen, while these titles might look the same, the backgrounds for all can be vastly different. As an example based on my personal experiences, I set out to find the total number of film redirects that were exactly: Foo(film). There were 172 of these, yet their histories were always varied. (I found it useful to display these titles in a Massviews chart). There are some pages that were recently created, and could qualify for R3 (although not usually). Sometimes, these were intentionally created with the lack-of-space, but most of the time these titles came about as left-behind from moves. Sometimes these were created at a bad title with extensive histories before being BLAR'd into the version that already exists, or may contain convoluted reversions between two titles that only differ in their spacing. In some of these cases though, G6 is likely to apply under the stipulation that they're "redirect(s) left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title." (which directly comes from Template:Db-error). The reason I'm neutral is because while I agree that these titles should be ridden of, I don't know if there is a clear-cut description would lead to deletion at this stage, more than what we already have described in G6 and R3. I agree something needs to be done, but investigating the histories seems to be an absolute requirement here, which cancels out a lot of these situations I'd think. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a question to this, would Shock(film) be eligible for CSD under this criteria, with its history? What about Rockers(film), which survived RfD? Brij Bhoomi(film) has 173 pageviews this month (due to its multiple incoming links), but would it also be CSD-able under this criteria despite it getting 17 views a day? At RfD I'd !vote to delete all of these for sure, but what I don't know is whether CSD makes the deletions too hasty, and whether there is value in investigating their histories and circumstances for existence. These are just the (film) redirects, and I don't know how complicated the other titles could be. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: "...there is value in investigating [the redirects'] histories and circumstances for existence..." There always is, which is one of the reasons I cannot sway my opinion one way or another to codify these redirects as eligible for CSD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As more and more examples get brought up, I'm becoming less and less certain that speedy deletion beyond R3 and G6 is possible in a way that is not too narrow to be useful and not too broad so as to catch things that shouldn't be deleted. I need to think more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I agree with that, yes. This is my concern as well. When looking through these titles, the backgrounds can be vastly different. When putting the Foo(film) RfD together, I was skipping over pages in history, because those would need to be checked on a case-by-case basis, presumably. It was unclear to me whether this new CSD criteria puts weight into histories, and if so, by how much? If we take away the pages with history, we're left with a decently smaller number of applicable pages, and the question becomes whether a whole criterion is necessary for the [X] number of cases that are safe to outright delete. I don't know how much that number is. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my follow-up would be to find a comparison. How are histories dealt with other R CSD criteria? I feel like I've seen situations where a page (and its history) are replaced with a redirect (I think it was to Draftspace, but I can't recall), which was then tagged as R2'd by someone who followed up with the page. How "valuable" is the page history there? I'd presume it's checked every time, so doing it here might not be that unconventional. The question becomes what constitutes a "valuable history" that makes CSD a safe action for redirects that meet R5. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be checked every time, as with all other speedy criteria. I have no confidence that it is. —Cryptic 02:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I've finished sorting the most recent 2000 and least-recent 1100ish page titles containing an open-paren not preceded by a space at User:Cryptic/Improper disambiguation redirects (I was never going to get through all of them, and had only been fooled into thinking I could because SDZeroBot initially only gave me about a third of the results). The conclusions I'm drawing from that are:
    • We should make it explicit that this only applies to disambiguators per se, not parenthesized text that's part of the redirect subject's proper name, even if it's misspaced or misspelled. (This sounds obvious to me when it's put like that, but nobody's brought it up as the general case, even though more specific subcases like chemicals and section names have been.) So It's On(Dr.Dre)187um Killa and INS Talwar(F40) and Cheeses...(of Nazereth) wouldn't be speedyable, but restatements of the proper name or redundant parenthesized names like in King Edward Medical university(KEMU) and SsangYong Rodius(Stavic) could be. "Plausibly be searched for without spaces" is too vague, fails NEWCSD#1, and will be abused.
    • Section names like 501(c)(3) aren't common. Chemical names and processes are very, very common, and I didn't notice any incorrectly-formed disambiguators in chemistry-related redirects. If we're mentioning broad classes of counterexamples, that should be the first. I further think we should specifically exclude the entire subject area even if the disambiguator of a chemistry-related redirect is ill-formed and it would otherwise qualify.
    • These aren't frequent. There are a lot of extant cases, but we only see a handful of new ones a month. This seems to be a recurring theme at RFD - someone finds some broad new class of malformed redirects that have been accumulating since 2001, starts nominating them at RFD - sometimes properly in batches, sometimes individually! - and then it finds its way here, even though new ones aren't being rapidly created, and those that are fall under existing criteria.
    I've commented multiple times above, so I'll bold a position here: I oppose this as a permanent criterion, for being infrequent, redundant to R3, and error-prone; I'm neutral on a temporary X- series criterion until the old ones are dealt with. —Cryptic 03:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't delete anything under R3 unless it was created recently. It would make more sense to expand the scope of WP:G14, which already includes (disambiguation) redirects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, R3 is recent only. Quite obviously. As I mentioned above. But there's a finite, relatively small, number of non-recent ones: roughly 5000, based on the sample I analyzed, and that's assuming a vanishingly-small number of redirects with non-redirect history (which I didn't check for). As soon as they're gone - and that'll happen quickly, the admins vying for topspot at the awful WP:ADMINSTATS scoreboard query for speedy candidates like these and feed them into Twinkle - it'll be entirely redundant. —Cryptic 03:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    admins vying for topspot at the awful WP:ADMINSTATS scoreboard - surely not: the top admin there is behind the second-top admin by 400,000 deletions and so 5000 entries would be trivial. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't realized about these all time lists. It's just as I've always suspected, there's just no keeping up with Explicit. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a useful tool. Even if the current situation looks temporary, forcing repeated discussions isn't a good use of anyone's time. Also, there's no way of knowing it won't flare up again at some point, since redirects aren't necessarily closely watched and these sorts of mistakes can steadily build up unnoticed; hell, this discussion is going on now because it already happened once. I don't buy the arguments that admins should be assumed to be total rubes, it doesn't actually take a PhD to recognize scientific nomenclatures and other idiosyncratic spellings aren't the same as Wikipedia disambiguators. If there's that much concern, just create a Category:Redirects with unspaced parentheticals or something similar; don't force people to murder untold numbers of characters and minutes of their lives they're not getting back. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf:, what I think could be helpful would be if we can identify which / how many of these qualify for G6 or R3 already, and use those existing criteria where appropriate. Once all of the G6/R3 candidates are addressed, maybe we can take a look at what remains, and the commonalities between them? If I had to guess, maybe 50% of these were unambiguously created in error and currently actionable?{{cn}} which might allow us to compartmentalize this block bit by bit. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose these redirects are entirely harmless. We may as well have them since they likely bring a small net benefit to the encyclopedia. The do no damage. Readers don't know our guidelines on how to format the disambiguator, and readers are our priority, not top-down decisions based on overly-finicky guidelines.🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would they qualify under WP:G6? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The very fact that this is controversial indicates it isn't a G6. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ones that were very obviously created by or when fixing a mistake (most commonly this is evidenced by being moved to and from this title by the same person in quick succession) do qualify as G6, but this only applies to some of the redirects that would fall under this criterion (either because they were created deliberately or because it isn't obvious whether creation was intentional or not). Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agree with editor Cremastra that these are harmless and possibly a bit helpful as {{R from typo}}s; however, the issue is that they are being deleted anyway and clogging RfD, which begs for a solution. And this solution does the trick as long as care is taken not to delete needed redirects that just look like the bad guys. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm worried that, as worded, the proposed criterion doesn't take into account page history that (a) may be required to be kept for attribution in the case of redirects from merges (which might lead to accidental breaches of licensing requirements), or (b) is otherwise useful; both of which are listed in the redirect guideline's reasons for keeping redirects. I'm also worried that it doesn't take into account the age of these redirects - some may have existed for a significant length of time and/or may be redirects with old history, which are listed in the guideline as redirects that should not normally be deleted without good reason & that should be left alone. I also share Cremastra's view about these redirects being harmless - in RfD discussions I've seen where such redirects have been nominated, I sometimes see WP:RDAB being cited; however, that shortcut links to an essay that doesn't explain why such redirects are costly enough as to warrant deletion (as opposed to being cheap). With the greatest respect to Paine Ellsworth,/gen I'm very hesitant to think we should be creating a new CSD criterion for redirects that may be being deleted at RfD when (arguably) they should be being kept, especially when they are possibly...helpful (which is another reason in the guideline for keeping them). Only a comment for now while things are still mulling around in my head, but I think I'll add a bolded !vote at some point relatively soon. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 01:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose per my comments above. I am heavily unconvinced that these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion in the first place. To take a few recent RfD examples ([6] [7], [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]), often in such discussions the only reason given for deleting them is per WP:RDAB - but, as I mentioned above, that essay section doesn't explain why these redirects are at all costly and/or problematic (and so, arguably, isn't a valid rationale for deletion - especially when considering that redirects are cheap is one of the guiding principles of RfD). I'm concerned that a local consensus may have formed at RfD to delete these redirects, and I wouldn't want to create a speedy deletion criterion that further embeds this. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering many RfD participants don't watch this page or subscribe to FRS, is it reasonable to advertise this RfC via an editnotice at RfD? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a temporary criterion per Steel and Cryptic. These redirects are a countable list and will go away in some time. Hence I would not prefer a "R5" as this becomes redundant once the backlog is gone. Also, we need the updated wordings incorporating Crouch Swale's suggestions about page history, which was also A Smart Kitten's concern. Jay 💬 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with making it temporary is that this backlog already built up once, so removing it once this current issue is resolved allows it to build up again. The other two temporary criteria were to deal with issues that definitively weren't going to recur, which is not the case with this; people will still inevitably create these bad redirects. Why take away a useful tool? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding behind the suggestions for a temporary criterion is that once the backlog is cleared, the combination of a report, R3 and G6 would mean there aren't enough redirects to meet NEWCSD criterion 3 (frequent). Of course there is nothing stopping us enacting a temporary criterion and then making it permanent later if the issue remains ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a choice, I'd definitely take a temporary criterion over nothing at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat that it excludes redirects with a substantial non-redirect history. That situation is rare enough to be worth discussing; and there could easily be situations where eg. an article was turned into a redirect that fits this description, which nobody noticed, and is then listed under this CSD - it wouldn't even have to have been done maliciously (although ofc it could be.) And if there is a history, whether due to a merge or whatever, this CSD would usually be the wrong approach anyway - in that case you'd want to move the redirect to preserve history and attribution, rather than create a new one that lacks them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CHEAP. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Discussion (Improper disambiguation redirects)

Skimming over some of the discussion at VPPOL regarding the recent G5 RFC, it appears there is a view that RFCs to establish a new speedy deletion criterion should be advertised on T:CENT; which I am personally amenable to. Looking in WP:CENT/A, I can't see that it's already been notified there. What are others' views on the idea of adding this to CENT? I would be in favour of it, but I wanted to hear from other editors first. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 03:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no objection to doing so, I don't think it's worth it as there isn't a clear consensus here and I don't think more input is going to significantly change that. More workshopping leading to a second proposal that was advertised on CENT would be a better use of time I think. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 23:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After skimming through the discussion prior to closing, I got here. At this point, I can close this per WP:PGCHANGE since it wasn't properly advertised, or this RfC can be relisted and then advertised at T:CENT, VPPOL, and other appropriate places. I personally prefer the latter, since I see a consensus forming around creating X3 that excludes redirects with a substantive page history or redirects from merges. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd prefer a new proposal with a specific proposed wording to be the one advertised to make it clear what people are supporting/opposing. Thryduulf (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work for people?

X3: Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation, e.g. "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, nor does it apply if the redirect contains substantive page history (e.g. from a merge). Before nominating a redirect under this criterion:

  • Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
  • Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version.
HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that makes sense per my above comments. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a typo ("not does it apply" should be "nor does it apply"), and I wouldn't object to giving an example of "correctly or plausibly" but other than those two minor points this looks good to me. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have silently corrected the typo. As for examples, I did not include any because I honestly could not think of any (which certainly does not mean they don't exist, but does very much mean I am open to suggestions). In e.g. 501(c)(3), "(3)" is not a parenthetical disambiguation. Likewise for things like Dysprosium(III) nitride: the "(III)" is not a disambiguator.

If there are no other points, I will look to launch an RfC with a CENT listing ~tomorrow. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: enacting X3

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for implementing X3. There is support for implementing a speedy deletion criterion of some sort–that much is clear. More contested was whether or not said criterion should be temporary, as was proposed here, or permanent, as was proposed in an aborted previous RfC. Valid arguments were presented on both sides regarding this matter, but, as many supporters' rationales did not comment on this debate at all, their support should be presumed to be for the actual proposal laid out in front of them, which was for X3. This close does not preclude an RfC to implement a permanent criterion held at a later date. (non-admin closure) Mach61 14:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should X3 (redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation) be enacted as a temporary CSD? 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed text:

X3: Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation, e.g. "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, nor does it apply if the redirect contains substantive page history (e.g. from a merge). Before nominating a redirect under this criterion:

  • Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
  • Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version
  • Support as proposer. These are all redirects which are errors in the act of disambiguation, and thus has no natural affinity with the article in question. I will also add that in the above discussion people have explained why this is A Good Thing; I will let them explain their own reasoning rather than attempt to filter it through my voice. I will note that this is supposed to be a temporary criterion per WP:NEWCSD criterion 4, as once the "backlog" has been cleared it will be redundant to WP:R3. (For transparency, this comment includes a hidden ping to everyone who commented above. I have opted for a hidden ping to avoid the distraction of a bunch of usernames.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per HouseBlaster and my comments in the preceding section (tldr; when nominated at RfD these redirects are inevitably deleted). Although it is very likely that once the backlog is cleared the combination of R3 and G6 will make the need for this redundant we can discuss making it permanent if that turns out not to be the case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it may be better to make it permanent because some redirects will likely later get missed and then becoming too old for R3 but its better than nothing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, per my comments in the previous RfC. Although this proposed criterion takes into account page history, it doesn't factor in redirects' ages - which may lead to redirects that have existed for some time (including potentially redirects with old history) being deleted; despite the Redirect guideline stating that these should be left alone. Furthermore, and most importantly, the essay cited as the deletion rationale (WP:RDAB, part of WP:COSTLY) doesn't explain why these redirects are harmful enough to warrant deletion at all - simply stating that, in the opinion of the essayist, there is no need to redirect from them. As far as I can see, these redirects are entirely harmless. As I said in the previous discussion:

    I am heavily unconvinced that these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion in the first place. To take a few recent RfD examples ([14] [15], [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]), often in such discussions the only reason given for deleting them is per WP:RDAB - but, as I mentioned above, that essay section doesn't explain why these redirects are at all costly and/or problematic (and so, arguably, isn't a valid rationale for deletion - especially when considering that redirects are cheap is one of the guiding principles of RfD). I'm concerned that a local consensus may have formed at RfD to delete these redirects, and I wouldn't want to create a speedy deletion criterion that further embeds this.

    All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects with significant history, including old history, are excluded from this criterion. That doesn't invalidate the rest of your comment though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, when I used the phrase redirects with old history, I was referring to redirects with entries in the page history from previous versions of Wikipedia - i.e., those that {{R with old history}} would be applied to. I read the phrase substantive page history in the proposed criterion as referring to an article (instead of just a redirect) being present in the history - therefore, my understanding was that redirects with old history are not necessarily excluded from this criterion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant substantive page history to mean something like page history with something more than adding/removing rcats/fixing double redirects/etc. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just add this to the "e.g." parenthetical above? I think that would avoid further confusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified Wikipedia talk:Redirect & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect of this discussion. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral If there seriously is a problem with these kinds of redirects then sure, go ahead. But I am failing to see how these can just all be nominated in one big RfD with consensus to delete. Are there too many of them? I know the IP that was doing the nomination of them failed to group the redirects appropriately together in a single nomination. Awesome Aasim 18:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Grouping up nominations more often then not leads to a failed nomination as editors just can't handle a large amount. Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CHEAP. I fail to see what harm these redirects are causing and would recommend instead to just leave them alone. -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral What is the problem that needs to be solved? The Banner talk 18:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is a convention that affects a quite-literally-"random" selection of pages that happened to have issues. While it is good to create redirects for reasonable typos based on different way that search terms can be spelled, errors in the act of disambiguation are not useful or plausible typos to keep. Out of the millions of pages that have parenthesis in their titles, there is not a single time when I, nor you, nor anyone would expect that the Foo(bar) version exists for the same title. Basically, if you were to purposely leave off this space when searching for a title, there is a 0.1% chance that the redirect would exist (as it's a group of thousands among a pool of millions). It's totally unreliable, will never be intentionally typed, and all-in-all exist as clutter among incoming links with the potential to drown out and dilute the actually likely typos. To quote WP:COSTLY, redirects also need looking after. While they may not take up a lot of bandwidth on their own, these faulty titles have been a WP:PANDORA's box cracked wide open, which has led to a surplus of unexpected corners where edits can go undetected. Out of the thousands of affected redirects, I'll estimate that 10%(?) have substantial history, as duplicate pages left unincorporated for anywhere up to a decade and beyond in some cases. That's still hundreds of titles with histories! Of course these such cases wouldn't apply under this new CSD criterion, but by removing the titles that have no reason to exist, a higher focus can be placed on the titles that ARE distinguished by their complicated histories, most of which haven't seen the light of day from their peculiar, isolated locations.
All in all, an uncontrolled surplus of these titles makes it difficult to monitor new content, harder for editors to track changes and split histories, adds unnecessary and unlikely filler to redirect lists, maintains a faulty narrative that it's okay to move a title to "Foo(bar)" if "Foo (bar)" is salted for whatever reason, or that it's okay to have these unlikely parenthetical errors in titles (which always get ejected to new titles per the MOS anyway), and just all-in-all makes navigation less consistent to randomly account for an implausible typo redirect that exists 0.1% of the time. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my comment below, I am moving to oppose the current version. I would hypothetically support a permanent R5 that does not include the bullet points, which puts the onus unnecessarily on new page patrollers to continuously be jumping through hoops to follow these. As it stands there is a very high reliance on the idea that "once these are deleted then we will start catching everything with R3/G6/RfD" which is exactly what is going on right now, with very little success. This is plucking the flower without detaching the root of the issue. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since I suggested it above. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blarg, my own comment further down in the discussion concerns me. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose per Tavix and my comments above. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Hey man im josh below. Preferably without the two bullet points, and preferably permanently. In regards to deleting the two bullet points, CSDs should be simple. We should not be putting the burden of checking other pages, editing other pages, etc in order to place a CSD on patrollers and administrators. I'd prefer to keep CSDs simple, without a bunch of little gotchas and caveats. The complexity of NPP workflows is a big problem, slowing down review times and leading to NPP burnout. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...We should not be putting the burden of checking other pages, editing other pages, etc in order to place a CSD on patrollers and administrators." For what it's worth, such actions have to be taken in some cases, such as for WP:R4 and most of WP:G8, and for good reasons; thus, that quoted claim cannot be applied across the board. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G14, A2 and A10 all require checking the existence and/or content of other pages too. G12 requires checking for external sources. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that this RFC's wording says that the CSD is temporary, but lists no expiration date. Is this really a temporary X criteria if this CSD has no expiration date? Perhaps it would make more sense to have this as a permanent R criteria, then use an RFC to repeal it later. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to Oppose. This proposed criteria is too complicated because of the two bullets. I do not like the idea of a CSD where patrollers and admins are required to do a bunch of cleanup steps before placing or executing the CSD. The two bullet points put a lot of burden on the patroller and deleting admin. Are these bullets required when filing RFDs or closing RFDs? This is more cleanup burden than the status quo, if I'm understanding things correctly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to both your comments in order: neither X1 nor X2 had built-in expiration dates; they were just repealed when the cleanup was done. And this is complicated because it is temporary: there are people (e.g. me) who are volunteering to complete the steps required by the two bullet points to clean up the backlog of incorrectly spaced disambiguations. Put differently, this is not meant for e.g. NPPers (though they are welcome to use it), instead it is meant for people who volunteer to help with this backlog. If you (generic you) wish to use RFD, nobody will stop you; this is a shortcut for the people who feel like it is a shortcut. But a discussion takes volunteer time; I think it is easier to check Special:WhatLinksHere and potentially create a redirect (both of which could be linked from the CSD template for ease of use) than have a weeklong discussion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support (summoned by bot). I’m supportive in principle, but the discussion above highlighted some instructive examples, such as the chemistry false positives, and the film examples where each case seemed to warrant individual investigation, so I’m a little hesitant on whether this change might reduce due diligence that would have caught false positives. Then again, if that happens, just recreate them? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Chemistry examples would not be in scope because the text in the parentheses is not a disambiguator, similarly anything that is correctly rendered without a space cannot be deleted by this. The concern with the film redirects was almost entirely that some have substantial history, such redirects are explicitly excluded from this this criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I have upgraded my comment to a Support. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question (probably primarily to those "support"-ing this proposal): Does anybody recall why the texts at WP:UNNATURAL and WP:RDAB were written? I've ... unfortunately slept since they were added to Wikipedia:Redirects are costly, and the comments above by The Banner and Barnards.tar.gz seem to validate that without quick-to-find context, this proposal may be a bit confusing to understand regarding what problem it is trying to solve, especially for those who do not visit WP:RFD regularly. If anyone recalls the reasons and/or precedents, it may need to be added to Wikipedia:Redirects are costly or even Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes since I just realized that ... I don't see this as an example at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes, and I would have expected to have found it there. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the exceptions have been well thought out, the risk of unintended consequences seems low. – Teratix ₵ 05:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Utopes. While these redirects are cheap, the effort wasted on individually judging their deletion is not. Without this proposal, it is apparent that editors unfamiliar with this discussion will continue to flood RfD with uncontroversial deletion requests. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments in the previous discussion – individual nominations have invariably resulted in a clear consensus to delete. I trust that the reviewing admins would catch most false positives. Perhaps this could then be incorporated into R3 after the current round of cleanup is complete, if a standalone criterion would be redundant. Complex/Rational 15:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason these aren't included in R3 at the moment is the recency requirement of that criterion (which is there for good reason). Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The outcome of these types of redirects being sent to RfD is extremely predictable and it would save everybody involved some time. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support (Invited by the bot) "Weak" because I have less expertise on this than the other respondents above. Everything has a cost (including retained redirects) and IMO folks who calculate that based on what the hard drive cost are mistaken. Also, if these are already all getting uncontroversially deleted, then IMO that refutes the argument that some need to be kept. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As in the above closed discussion, my support for this action is resumed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well thought-through proposal and supported by an apparent consensus across multiple RfDs on the topic. I don't see a large benefit to delaying the cleanup by requiring all of these go through RfD; if it's obvious just let sysops delete it and avoid the busywork and bureaucracy, that's the whole point of CSDs. Wug·a·po·des 20:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my previous comment. My support is primarily because of the RfD nominations, which almost always result in deletion and are an unnecessary waste of time, but secondarily because of the unnatural aspect of the typos (as Utopes said above). Personally, I would be even more restrictive: for example, I'm never going to speedy a redirect that has had hundreds (or, heck, even just tens) of pageviews in the last month, but I understand that pageviews are rarely a consideration for redirects nominated at RfD, and this proposal is obviously better than nothing. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd really be happier if this spelled out "non-redirect history" rather than the vague "substantial". (The only other thing it could mean - pages tagged {{R with old history}} - isn't a concern; no page with a matching title is tagged with the template, and the oldest, Road Warriors (Atlantic League)(version 2), postdates modern MediaWiki and has an article in the history besides.) —Cryptic 03:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from a maintenance perspective. Redirects need maintenance to ensure they're categorized appropriately, link to Wikidata items, etc. With the sheer amount of redirects on enwiki, it's not going to make a huge difference, but it's nice to do housekeeping. SWinxy (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my previous comments. RfD has been constantly overwhelmed in recent days. InfiniteNexus (talk)
  • Support: uncontroversial maintenance work supported by previous consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now that I've thought about what this would entail, I do want to add: while I support the addition of a CSD to cover these, there is nothing about the group of affected pages that signals it into the X category. Under the pretense that a CSD will be created for this, I oppose X3 and support R5. There are other supporters above who also prefer something permanent, which is my lean as well, and there has not been a spot to cover how this would be categorized. R5 was the original suggestion, but was changed to X3 by HouseBlaster when starting this RfC. As a refresher on the precedent for X criterion, which has only been enacted once ever (X1/X2 occurred simultaneously), both of these affected a limited number of titles which was impossible to grow in scope, due to the finite bounds, and will 100% never be a problem again when the target set of titles gets dealt with. This was due to the clearly defined and permanent bounds of the X1 and X2 sets.
X1 was created to deal with redirects meeting one criteria: "created by Neelix". After Neelix's ban, that group of 50,000 eventually would basically disappear, and cannot possibly grow in size due to the finite nature of a single banned user's page creations. X2 was a bit more nuanced, but was created to deal with faulty pages created by the content translator tool, specifically before the configuration error described at WP:CXT was fixed in 27 July 2016. This set too, would disappear in number, in part due to the full draftification of remaining pages.
The list of redirects applicable under X3: "Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation", is totally unlike X1 and X2, in the sense that Foo(bar) can be created by anyone, at any time, for all time. Based on the hundreds of recent RfDs, there is consensus that these titles can go. There's thousands of these pages at the moment, and this mistake was equally as common 12 years ago just as it was common 2 years ago. It's because of this that the temporary aspect I don't think holds up; there needs to be a long term solution that doesn't involve hawking NPP eternally for R3 candidates. In the opening, HouseBlaster states that: "this is supposed to be a temporary criterion per WP:NEWCSD criterion 4, as once the "backlog" has been cleared it will be redundant to WP:R3." This is only the case if every single Foo(bar) title is caught within a month of creation forever, i.e. within the window where R3 applies. While many of these titles are quite old, this quarry shows many (but not all) of the 100+ Foo(bar) redirects created within the last two years, the key takeaway being that "they exist" and haven't been RfD'd or R3'd yet. If we delete all the Foo(bar) titles and end up with another 100+ of these two years from now, now we're back where we started with the overflow. From my point of view, this should be a permanent CSD until the consensus is that this shouldn't be a permanent CSD any longer. These titles will always pop up and calling this X3 implies that there will never be a surplus of these ever again, which cannot be known. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these get created at such a rate that those which are not caught by the combination of R3 and G6 gets to a point that RfD gets overwhelmed again or it looks like it wouldn't if X3 didn't exist we can easily convert it to R5 at that time because we will have evidence that it is needed permanently. We don't have that evidence now. Although I suspect it wasn't your intent, the wording of your comment implies that the change from R5 to X3 was a unilateral decision by HouseBlaster, but it was a decision taken based on comments in the first discussion and discussion of the way forward following it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, it looks like I didn't see the other parts of the discussion where the temporary aspect was being talked about. HouseBlaster was the person saying X3 in the first RfC, whereas the other mentions were of whether or not to make a "temporary criteria" without necessarily saying "X3". It was then proposed as X3 a day before the new RfC began, with the sign-off being mainly for the proposed text and in my eyes wasn't necessarily about the X3 vs R5 decision.
Something that has been brought up previously is that this is redundant to R3 and G6, when this is not the case. (Side note: The last R3 deletion was 4 days ago, on Solar eclipse of 2024-04-28, not super important though, just a fun thing). R3 is its own entity entirely and is completely time-sensitive for recent redirect creations. This is impossible to be a failsafe alone. Redirects will be missed, or mistakenly patrolled, and based on the sheer number of recently-created Foo(bar) pages from the last year or so that still exist untouched, they definitely escape eyes. The criteria that has more pertinence is G6, which is reserved for errors, and most of these are errors! The (unanswered) question I asked in the first RfC was whether we should go through and delete the errors right now, and see how many intentional creations remain. Who knows! Maybe we won't need to make a temporary CSD in the first place if the CSD is just going to go away once we temporarily clear the backlog. Contrarily to what you say, this is fundamentally an ongoing issue if we have Burek(song), Poison ivy(plant), and KP Oli Cup(cricket) all created days ago in Feb/March 2024, and all marked as new-page-patrolled too, preventing anyone from possibly spotting these in time to R3. These aren't even necessarily G6-able either, and if we start picking up several a month to RfD (despite overwhelming consensus being to always delete regardless of time spent at title), this backlog will never be fully cleared. Because of the continuous nature that these redirects get created, this should be R5, in my eyes. There's no evidence to suggest this is temporary, as we have pages that meet this criteria from 2002 through 2024. Starting at X3 and moving to R5 is unprecedented to occupy a temporary X CSD first, and there is a need to get it right the first time to avoid occupying more CSD names than we have to. If there are titles here that are G6-able as unambiguous errors, I say let them be G6ed if they can. If it's a permanent thing, let it be permanent! I'm in support of the speedy deletion of all of these pages, but I think the idea that the Foo(bar) group is a temporary and countable problem is just not the case. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is unprecedented until it's needed for the first time, that's not a reason to support or oppose anything. Everybody supporting a temporary criterion was supporting the creation of a criterion numbered X3 even if they didn't use that explicitly (temporary criteria are numbered in the X series, the next one available is 3) in the same way that everyone supporting a new permanent criterion for redirects only is supporting a criterion numbered R5 and everyone supporting a new permanent criterion for articles is supporting a criterion numbered A12, regardless of whether they use those names or not.
Some of the titles are G6-able, some aren't, but the point is that once the backlog has been cleared the combination of R3 and G6 means that the few not eligible under either criterion will not overload RfD to the point a new criterion is needed, as best we can predict based on the data we have now. If that changes then there is no harm at all (number exhaustion is not a thing) in changing X3 to R5. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very useful query but let's not limit ourselves strictly to its output. Other redirects should also go, such as "Joe Smith(disambiguation)" mentioned in the proposal (excluded because of the space) and 10,000 Summers(No Devotion song), which also has a space in the qualifier. (The database Quarry uses represents spaces as underscores.) Certes (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose X3, although I could support a CSD for one-character typo disambiguation redirects. Temporary criteria are there to help fix issues created by specific users or specific software tools; this one has no business being temporary. —Kusma (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: The point is such typos are already covered by R3 if recently created. Once a cleanup is done under X3, the ability to speedily delete longstanding typo redirects is no longer needed. -- King of ♥ 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would plausible typos like omission of a single space be covered by R3? These are being generated quite frequently, which shows they are not freak occurrences, but plausible typos. I can't see R3 being applicable. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • R5 as first choice, X3 as second per my reasoning earlier in this discussion and Utopes above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support X3 first choice, R5 second choice - This is most cleanly X3. However, we should dump the quarry query onto a page somewhere, and state that X3 applies only to these redirects. This is appropriate as X3 because the backlog is disproportionate to the creation rate. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These redirects are not useful, given that we have the correct versions, and simply clutter search results and the database. {{Database report}} is good at dumping quarry queries onto a page. Certes (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there are so many correct redirects without a space before (. It would lead to too many erroneous deletions. More care and consideration is required than a speedy delete. R3 can be used if creation is recent. Suppress redirect on move policy would also need to match. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not specific to you, but I see a lot of discussions on this page (to borrow my earlier wording) act as if in this area admins are also total rubes. Admins are by definition experienced enough to distinguish obvious errors in Wikipedia disambiguators, even unfamiliar ones, from idiosyncratic spelling conventions such as chemical nomenclature or artwork titles. As an example, even someone unacquainted with chemistry can click the redirect Fe(III) oxide and, within two paragraphs, see ample evidence that it's part of a nomenclature. By contrast, if someone were to somehow create Isaac Brock(longevity claimant), no one experienced enough to be an admin would think that the disambiguator (longevity claimant) is unique among disambiguators in lacking spaces; even without its existence, if you get as far as typing in "Isaac Brock(" you'll see the result you're looking for in the dropdown search results. And on top of that, if there's a mistake it's also entirely reversible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all well and good so long as the admin bothers to read the page title and comprehend what they are doing before pressing delete. Doesn't sound especially difficult of course, but CSD definitely attracts the type who are intent on speed over anything else. J947edits 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • R5 as first choice, X3 as second. There are ways to handle some of the false positives, including using {{R from chemical formula}} on chemistry redirects. The fact is that there are just a very large amount of these and this ongoing clean up has been going on for years. Even using twinkle to send to RfD is time consuming as some editors want these grouped up (which is understandable), but the template at RfD is expanded (for whatever reason) so it isn't a smooth and easy copy/paste. Then we also come into a problem of batch nominations where time and time again it has proven that editors just don't like these and these fail for no other reason other than that. So we end up with clean up editors needing to decide each time what amount is the correct amount to batch up... which is just a waste of time. To the above concern about admins not doing their job correctly. If the that happens, the problem isn't with this but with the admin themselves and the proper channels should handle that. --Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I originated (and have expanded as necessary over time as more examples arise) the content contained at WP:RDAB. I did so because it is easier to reference the sentiment expressed there with a quick shortcut rather than repeating myself over and over again at redirects for discussion. However, on similar grounds, I oppose this as a temporary remedy because such redirect archetypes arise and populate the venue so often. I am also unsure if I would support such a criterion if it were proposed as permanent. I would have to put a lot more thought into the matter than I have at the moment. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: A partial answer to your question posed much above (i.e "does anybody recall why the texts at WP:UNNATURAL and WP:RDAB were written?") is contained in my comment right above this. Let me know if elaborating further on any particular point would be of help. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There seems to be agreement that these should be deleted at RfD, and that is what ultimately controls. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per NOTBURO; this solely enforces a longstanding consensus, even if I disagree with the longstanding consensus. First hand experience, this is also putting a huge burden on RfD. Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 20:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NOTBURO, I have no opinion on the underlying arguments, but if there is general consensus that a) these redirects are not needed and b) going through all of them at RfD manually will take a huge amount of time, there is no real reason to not do this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without bullet points -- this is a good proposed CSD, but needs to be made as simple as possible, and there should be no requirement for a CSD editor to subsequently go through and do additional cleanup of links, or create new pages. The whole point of CSDs are that they should be *speedy*. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support they always get deleted so let's speed it up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support R5, weak support X3. Fine, let's just get this done. (I've already commented a few times in this discussion, so I've already elaborated my stance.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support R5 There is no reason for this rule to be temporary, although we do need manual check for false-positive matches such as Iron(II)Ferrous. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support don't care whether temp or perm. Yes, there could be false positives, but I assume editors are smart enough to make the right judgements. Toadspike (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as such redirects are often implausible and unlikely a search term. R5 would be suitabile for this; it is unlikely for people to type titles without space between the ambiguous term and the disambiguator. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 10:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to prevent archiving before this is closed. It's been listed at WP:ANRFC since 30 March. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Post-RFC

Just noting that I have created {{db-x3}} and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation, and updated MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown and CAT:CSD to match. I think that's everything that needs doing, but please feel free to fix whatever else needs it. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle update requested by Gonnym (thanks!). Primefac (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before we start deleting, can we please just have a discussion about whether to implement this as X3 or R5? Because there is functionally no reason to have this be X3, as there is nothing inherently temporary about this issue. Nobody has identified which of the relevant titles are already speedy delete-able, and how many of the leftover redirects are actually affected by this; any number is just guesses and estimates, a STARK contrast to the systematic and temporary nature of X CSDs. There has been significant pushback to the bullet points, of which none of the support !voters have clarified any reason for keeping them (as an aside to "these pages should be deleted", of which I agree they should be). I appreciate the gusto of the non-admin closure but basically all of the significant issues are currently unaddressed, which need solutions before proceeding, in my opinion. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the close leaves the option of converting this to R5 in the future, which mostly addresses the concerns that it will only need to be temporary: I have a funny feeling that this process will take a while, and if in the meantime there is demonstrable evidence that redirects are still being created in this manner and not being handled under the existing R3 it will make that much more of a compelling case to make X3 a permanent R.
Personally speaking, I would have made the bullet points optional (adding in a "should") to address the concerns of those against them, but on the whole I suspect that folks looking for and dealing with X3 will already be motivated (since they wanted it in the first place) to take care of the "paperwork" when filing that this issue with the bullet points will end up being a non-issue. Primefac (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you think the X3/R5 option is urgent? Any, as was explained multiple times in the discussion, there is no evidence available that this needs to be permanent - if that changes then we will have evidence to support making it a permanent criterion. As for the bullet points - changing links is necessary to prevent harming the encyclopaedia, creating new redirects where the search term is plausible but a mistake was made in missing a space benefits readers (who are always the most important). These are things that should be done prior to many speedy deletions already and nobody has articulated any good reason why they're a bad idea (being allowed to nominate something for speedy deletion without making sure you aren't breaking something is not a good reason). If you do think the requirements are too onerous then that's fine, you can simply not nominate any pages under this criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about similar errors like Foo (disambiguation and Foo disambiguation), while the proposal was only for missing spaces I think we should consider other errors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those would need to be a separate proposal to be speedily deletable. There have been arguments made that "Foo (disambiguation" redirects can be helpful in certain circumstances and so aren't uncontroversial. I don't recall ever seeing a "Foo disambiguation)" redirect come to RfD so it would almost certainly fail the frequency requirement. Almost every other type of error is rare, already covered by R3 and/or G6, and/or not uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get rid of A2?

Pretty much the title. For one, it is not used frequently (the last 100 entries take us back to November 2021). But more importantly, I don't think deletion is actually beneficial. The criterion itself calls for tagging with {{Not English}} (if it does not exist on a different language Wikipedia), and I would add that draftification is a good option as well. Given those two alternatives to deletionWP:ATD-T and WP:ATD-I—exist, I am not sure we should have this CSD (c.f. WP:PRESERVE). Is there anything I am missing/other thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays most of these creations are in Draft space, so that is where they get knocked back. If there is a chance that the content is useful to another project or could be translated, then draftifying could be good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, the justification for draftifying new non-English articles is Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review #2a-iii, that the article meets some speedy deletion criterion, namely A2? So in order to continue justifying these draftifications it would be appropriate to add non-English to the list of reasons why a page might be obviously unready for mainspace, releasing A2 from its role there. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: deprecating A2

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.


Should A2 (Foreign-language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project) be deprecated as a CSD? 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. A2 is rarely used, and thus fails NEWCSD3. The last 100 entries on that query take us back to November 2021, and when you ignore false positives my rough count takes us back to February 2021. Assuming all of the articles which qualify for A2 need to be deleted, AfD can handle an additional ~0.14 articles a day. But more importantly, I don't think deletion is needed in this case. Incubation and tagging for translation is a viable WP:ATD, and per ATD If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Template:Centralized discussion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Foreign language articles pasted into English Wikipedia without any translation are low effort on the part of the article creator and not a good use of editor time. The status quo of deleting these seems fine here. Also, the idea of sending more articles to AFD is not exactly a selling point, as it is often mentioned that AFD is backlogged and does not have enough regular !voters. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEWCSD is not the threshold to repeal a criterion, unless you'd like to make a play at A7 and G11 - when we've removed criteria before, it was because essentially all uses of them were incorrect. And oppose on the merits too: these aren't enwiki articles, they're requests for enwiki articles, without even the possibility of moving them to the proper project (where, in my experience, they're either ignored forever or deleted outright anyway). —Cryptic 02:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It may not be used much directly, but my comment above that it is still needed to justify draftication appears to remain unaddressed by the nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to note in the proposal that it would be deprecated in favor of draftifying. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss the point. To draftify an article requires a rationale. The current rationale for draftifying non-English articles invokes A2. Removing A2 also removes this rationale from draftification, preventing in-process draftification of non-English articles. If you want to continue draftifying non-English articles, leave A2 in place and it will just work. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Wanted topic but not in English” sounds like a good draftification rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per every point by the proposer. Eligible cases are required to have a corresponding article on another language Wikipedia. This is an implicit claim that the topic is missing from the English Wikipedia. Draftification for translation is an obvious better route. Far less WP:BITEY is one big reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per proposer and especially SmokeyJoe. This criteria long predates draftspace, and the wiki has also changed in other ways in the past 15 or so years. Additionally, every criterion should be compatible with NEWCSD. Yes there are some that have been grandfathered in, but that doesn't mean they would be good criteria if proposed today or that we shouldn't periodically review existing criteria to see if they are still fit for purpose (this is why R4 and G14 exist as separate criteria). Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at least for now. Largoplazo makes good points in the Discussion section below about needing to consider this in concert with pages needing translation, and others' comments about how this interacts with criteria for draftification are also valid. This isn't an endorsement of the status quo, rather I think we need to take a comprehensive look at how we want to handle non-English submissions in 2024 and then make necessary changes to all the affected policies and guidelines to match that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Cryptic. Just copying some content doesn't mean one would necessarily work on translating it. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like the purpose of draftspace! SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That takes six more months of lying around, which irks me >:(. If someone wants to actually work on something, IMO they'd translate the text and put it there one by one instead of just copying something, or, even better, use the content translation tool. I don't see the value of keeping stuff that would be deleted under A2. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You think six months is too long a deadline?
    There is no cost to putting the foreign language submission in draftspace. I think there is value in giving the author one week to follow up. And once it’s been one week, why not ignore it for six months. The cost of complicating G13 is more than the cost of leaving untouched in draftspace for six months.
    Many editors are not very good with their first edit. Here, it is necessarily an autoconfirmed editor, but still, fresh autoconfirmed editors are not always very good. Do you think Wikipedia needs a higher barrier for competence before they are allowed to create a mainspace page?
    The value of draftification is in pointing out to the newcomer where draftspace is, and allowing them to continue their intended contribution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how deleting a copied page produces a higher barrier to contribution. My interpretation of A2 is that it only applies if the article's entirely foreign language but nothing else. If there is something else to salvage, A2 wouldn't apply, and the article can still be draftified. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In 2024, there are sufficient tools available to assess whether a foreign-language page is worthy of translation (then it can be draftified) or not (then the other criteria apply). A2 seems to do more harm than good if we delete articles solely based on whether they are not in English and not on their merits. For example, Karl Friedrich Wunder which was deleted as A2 in January was a copy of de:Karl Friedrich Wunder (a notable 19th century photographer) was eligible for deletion under G12 since copying another language Wikipedia article is also a violation of copyright. Saturnino de la Torre was a wrong A2 since it didn't exist on es-wiki at that time but was probably eligible for G11 like the es-wiki counterpart. Point is, I don't think there is really much need anymore for A2 because in most cases the material either already fails another criterion or it's translation-worthy. Regards SoWhy 18:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose when I first looked and read this discussion or at last the 1st points I was going to support. However having read the rest and thought a bit more about it I think this criteria is good. Objective, most people are likely to agree foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project should be deleted as no content is actually lost as the content and history will still be on the foreign language project. Uncontestable, again this is a bit like A10 and arguably for the same reason as splitting G14 from G6 it might not be a good idea to merge or if this criteria is removed I'd expect people to use G6 anyway. Unlike T2 its quite simple so which as noted in the discussion to repeal T2 that the criteria is not easy to understand unlike this one. Frequent, yes it doesn't appear to be extremely frequent but with around 1 use per week that seems frequent enough given as noted in the U3 discussion neither A9 nor A11 appeared in around 32 hours of deletion. So I think this passes the 1st and 2nd NEWCSD and given the reasons for splitting G14 I'd argue along that logic it passes the 4th item and in terms of the 3rd though not very frequent seems frequent enough. I'd agree the articles can be drafted upon request but it seems a bit pointless given the article will still exist on the other project so if the author wants to start translating they can still use that page to get the content from. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Uncontestable”, that the wanted topic but not written in English needs to be deleted? That sounds weak. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not the topic its the content, having a foreign language article with the same content as the native language on the English Wikipedia is completely pointless. Its quite likely that if the topic exists on a foreign language Wikipedia it will be notable here but as noted we don't need to duplicate foreign language content here just like we don't need 2 articles on the same topic on the English Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose still a completely valid deletion criteria. Not being used much doesn't mean it doesn't have its place in the toolbox, and each Wikipedia has different notability standards. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. A2 exists to enforce WP:MACHINE so we shouldn't repeal A2 without modifying WP:MACHINE, but. I think the ideal process is, reviewing editor looks at article in %language on en.wiki and compares it to the same article on %language.wiki. Reviewing editor isn't necessarily expected to be able to read %language, but makes a quick eyeball assessment: does the version on en.wiki look reasonably developed and substantially different? If not, tag for A2. If so, reviewing editor tags the en.wiki version with {{Not English}} and then drops a note on %language.wikipedia.org/Talk:%Article to ask if they want it. (Reviewing editor is likely going to have to use google translate to make an intelligible note in %language, but that ought to be acceptable for talk pages). %language.wiki then has access to the old text which they can use to develop their article if appropriate, and en.wiki doesn't have foreign-language content in mainspace. Happy days. I do feel that this process is a useful way round a 7 day community timesink at AfD, but I also think it needs better documentation than currently exists.—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A2 predates MACHINE.
    If A2 requires human review, it should be PROD not CSD. I think immediate draftification is much better than PROD for a new non-English article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for sending me on that nostalgic trip into Wikipedia history.  :) I don't think it's strictly accurate to say that A2 predates MACHINE. The text now at WP:MACHINE has moved around a lot, and was, originally, phrased as:

    Translation is hard. Amateur translators tend to produce prose that is unnatural, and perhaps incorrect when it comes to specialized terminology....Machine translation is much much worse. Never use machine translation to create an article!

    I've traced that text back to the first revision of Wikipedia:Translations, on 11 May 2003. According to the edit summary that text was moved from the Village Pump and considering the date, I expect that would have been a cut-and-paste move. The paste includes undated text by User:MyRedDice, who is now User:MartinHarper and was incidentally the inventor of the Three Revert Rule and the Barnstar, saying "We do indeed recommend against machine translation". In other words, the gist of WP:MACHINE has been custom and practice since at least May 2003.
    Well, at that point in time, what's now the Criteria for Speedy Deletion read like this and the criteria for speedy deletion were collectively called "exemptions from the five-day rule" (which I think at that time was the minimum possible time a page had to be listed on Votes for Deletion before anyone was allowed to delete it).
    I'm saying that both rules go back to Wikipedia's equivalent of time immemorial.
    All CSD "require human review" because it's a human that adds the tags. We expect those humans have read, understood what they were reading, reflected if necessary, and then taken a decision to use CSD. Something should be a PROD when it needs two humans to review it. Therefore A2 is appropriate for CSD, not PROD.
    Why would draftification be a helpful step? Content doesn't meet A2 unless it duplicates content on another WMF project, so I can't see any benefit to using draft space in that way.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All CSD require human review? Great in theory. Tagging if often done in error. Any editor or IP can tag {{Db-a2}}. And then, there’s plenty of not so old evidence of some admins would delete tagged pages en-mass, at high speed. This is why there is supposed to be the rule, all eligible pages should be deleted.
    Would draftification be helpful? Yes, it would be helpful to the editor who saved the article there. They should have saved it in draftspace. Moving it to draftspace necessarily means that the article log will point to the draftpage. Then, when that editor comes back, they can find the draft, both from the deletion log of the article title, and in their contribution history. This is more helpful to them than coming back to find a log entry mentions A2, and no record that they ever did anyhthing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to speedy draftification: As stated by editors in this discussion and above, deletion might be a bit too harsh, and these are requests for articles to be created on English Wikipedia. Speedy draftification might be the best way to allow for these articles to be developed for enwiki. Failing that, repeal. Awesome Aasim 13:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per David Epstein, Cryptic, and S Marshall. Translation tools are not yet 'sufficient'. Moreover, one should not potentially use the mainspace in an attempt to tip the scales towards the translation or scrutiny of viability of one topic over any other. Just because a criterion exists does not mean the deletion of such a page is a certain; incubation is still an option if a page is deemed worthy of retention by those reviewing it. At the end of the day, non-English content is likely of little use to most of our readers; eliminating a longstanding tool to easily and quickly remedy that is not a good idea. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As long as it is being used to delete pages that are of no use to us, we should not be repealing criteria solely because they are not used very often. Having this criteria discourages users from other language Wikipedias from copying their articles onto here without properly translating, resulting in a page that needs a fundamental rewrite. funplussmart (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; not broken, the last thing AfD needs is more burden. Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of A2 RFC

  • Comment WP:Pages needing translation into English should be taken into account. Should this RFC be closed and redrafted to consider both together? Under the terms of WP:PNT, an article created in a language other than English that doesn't qualify for A2 (or any other reason for deletion) gets a grace period of two weeks. If translation isn't at least underway by then, the article gets put up for deletion under WP:PROD or WP:AFD. It doesn't make sense to give non-English articles treatment that's disparate in this manner, one month to live if they aren't on another language's Wikipedia and six months to live if they are.
Having said that, draftification really has changed the game, as most of the otherwise legitimate articles listed on WP:PNT, by the time I see them, are red links because someone's response was to draftify them. So if this RFC comes out in favor of draftification as a blanket treatment when a non-English article is on another Wikipedia, then it will make just as much sense to make draftification that standard treatment for all non-English articles, and eliminate WP:PNT's role in that situation. WP:PNT would still be of use for cases for which it's used today, where someone has added a chunk of potentially useful non-English material to an article already in English. And it would retain its role as the place to post requests for fixing articles that have been translated to English.
If this change in guidance were to be made, however, it would definitely be time to rename WP:PNT (which should long ago have been renamed WP:Articles needing translation to English, since non-articles, including drafts, aren't handled there) to something else, since coverage of "Pages needing translation" would no longer be its role at all.
Alternatively, we could simply allow the drafts to be listed at WP:PNT. And remove the two-week grace period. Let all entries remain posted until either translated or G13ed.
Due to all these considerations, I think A2 and WP:PNT should be considered holistically. Largoplazo (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong (I haven't done a lot of work at WP:PNT for at least a decade now) but I don't think any articles have actually been given the two weeks grace for a few years now. Most articles either get deleted as copyvios or A2 or moved to draft space well before the two weeks have expired. Ping @Lectonar who might be able to correct me. —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself here, but I will respect the 2 weeks grace for prodded articles. As for the case of Saturnino de la Torre which I deleted as an A2 because it had once existed on Spanish Wikipedia: I actually interpret A2 a bit more widely here: for me it's enough that an article has once existed in another Wikipedia; requirements for an article here are more strict regarding sources and notability in compariosn to most other Wikipedias....so if something is deleted at, e.g., Spanish Wikipedia, rare would be the case that it would stand as an article here. And yes, probably it would have been eligible as a G11, but that would mean the article would have to be translated first, or the prospective deleting admin is able to read and understand enough Spanish to be able to process it without translation...this would rather cut down the number of admins who could delete. On another point, G speedy deletion criteria are "general" ones, while A deletions are restricted to article space. When I have a choice, I will use the specialized criterion over the general one. Lastly, allowing drafts at WP:PNT will inflate the workload over there even more. It's bloated enough as it is. But I would support a move to WP:Articles needing translation to English. Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not PNTers who do not respect the two weeks (I realise I have not been clear in what I wrote); what happens most of the time is that pages get listed at PNT and then are dealt with by other people using other mechanisms (draftified/speedied) so PNTers just have to remove the redlinked entries. —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. WP:PNT used to be fun, I actually got to do some translation, now it's just remove the red links and maybe the date header. On the other hand, if we were to start accepting drafts there, then I'd have my pointers to potential translation fodder back, in cases where the language is the only reason the article was draftified. Largoplazo (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To look at some real cases, would someone please temp undelete and list the last twenty A2 deletions? -SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Undeleting into mainspace would be pretty bad. I'd say somebody just copy the contents and put them in userspace. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RFC new R5

Should there be a new R5 criteria for incorrectly formatted redirects to DAB pages? Redirects to disambiguation pages with malformities qualifiers such as Foo (desambiguation), Foo (DISAMBIGUATION) and Foo (Disambiguation), this excludes redirect using the correct WP:INTDAB title namely Foo (disambiguation) or any title that has useful history. Redirects with incorrect qualifiers that don't target disambiguation pages can be deleted under G14. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer and the discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26#London (Disambiguation) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages these redirects are a nuisance to editors trying to fix disambiguation errors and search takes readers to the correct title if deleted anyway. I would be open to moving the redirects to pages ending in the (correctly formatted) "(disambiguation)" that point to pages that aren't DAB pages here if people think that's a good idea. 1 objective, most agree they should be deleted though a significant minority disagree as is sometimes the case with other criteria, 2, uncontestable, per the 2 linked discussions there is a consensus that they should be deleted, 3, frequent, although not extremely frequent they are frequent enough IMO, 4, nonredundant, these may be able to be deleted under R3 or G6 as it was argued in the 2022 discussion but given the discussion it would be clearer to have a separate criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging people from the 2 linked RFDs @Nickps, Certes, Thryduulf, Steel1943, PamD, InterstellarGamer12321, Utopes, Cremastra, Shhhnotsoloud, CycloneYoris, Explicit, Hqb, Sonic678, Neo-Jay, Station1, Axem Titanium, Mellohi!, Chris j wood, CX Zoom, Mx. Granger, The Banner, MB, Paradoctor, J947, Tavix, A7V2, Uanfala, Eviolite, BDD, BD2412, Compassionate727, Respublik, and Legoktm:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These shoot basically be deleted on sight. BD2412 T 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alternative capitalization of first letter being included – These are not harmful and Wikipedia is not improved with their deletion. It's entirely predictable that someone would miscapitalize a disambiguator. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As the only non-article pages in mainspace, disambiguation pages and redirects are each special and somewhat obscure from a reader viewpoint, and redirects to disambiguation pages are doubly so. The correct versions of these redirects are a technical measure to assist editors and the automated tools they use. The incorrect versions, including capitalised variants, serve no purpose and help no one. Shoot on sight. Certes (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Entirely unhelpful to keep these around. Might as well keep any and every misspelling as entirely predictable that someone at some point will make such an error. Better to make it clear that it is an error than to let an editor think they have created a correct wiki link. olderwiser 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deleting "(Disambiguation)" redirects if they redirect to a disambiguation page-someone might miscapitalize the D (like in the case of holding the ⇧ Shift key for too long), and while it may not necessarily be helpful, it's not harmful either. Support deleting those with misspelled "disambiguations" and those that have "disambiguation" yet don't have appropriate disambiguation pages that exist-those ones are search bar clutter and might annoy or mislead people respectively. Neutral (tilting support) on deleting the "(DISAMBIGUATION)" ones though-this error (e.g., holding the ⇪ Caps Lock key) does happen, but not very often. Those may help some people, but they're mostly an annoyance, so Wikipedia may be safe without the fully capitalized disambiguators. Regards, SONIC678 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    those that have "disambiguation" yet don't have appropriate disambiguation pages that exist Redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" (with any capitalisation) that don't point to a disambiguation page and cannot be retargetted to an appropriate disambiguation page are already covered by R4. Those that don't end that way need discussion to determine what, if anything, the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are harmful because linking to them from anywhere except their RfD nomination is always a mistake per WP:INTDAB. They should all be red links so its immediately obvious to the editor that tries to add them. In fact, this is precisely why we should delete "(Disambiguation)" redirects since those are the most likely ones to make editors trip up. The very few editors that hold down Shift for too long while searching for disambiguation pages (I'm guessing people don't search for dab pages too often in general so imagine how rare those mistakes are) will be taken care of by search anyway. Nickps (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic we shoudn't have any redirects pointed to dab pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that doesn't follow from my comment. What I said only applies to the redirects included in the CSD proposal. Linking to e.g. doing instead of [[do (disambiguation)|doing]] is wrong but the redirect should still be kept since it's useful for searching. Do (Disambiguation) is not useful because it's an implausible search term and anyone who nevertheless searches it today ends up in the correct page yet it looks close enough to the correct version that an unsuspecting editor might think it's fine per WP:INTDAB even though it's not. Keeping it would provide no benefit to the readers but would cause problems to the editors and the problem it would cause to the editors outweighs any potential benefits. Nickps (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC);edited: 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I just really disagree that it's an implausible search term to have the alternative capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, who types "(disambiguation)" in the first place? Almost all (if not all) our readers would type the name of the thing they are looking for and click the hatnote. I'm guessing (but I admittedly don't know for sure) that a lot of editors do the same. So, when even the correct capitalization is implausible, imagine what the incorrect one is. And again, for the very few people who do type the whole thing instead of clicking on the correct suggestion, and the very few times they get it wrong, search will find the right page anyway. Nickps (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people do search directly for disambiguation pages, e.g. when they are looking for a list of things called X, or when they know or suspect that the X they are looking for is not the primary topic but don't know what the article is called. As far as I am aware, it is not possible to know how many people "some" is, other than it's greater than zero.
    Regarding the capitalisation, everywhere outside of disambiguators there is a very strong consensus that redirects from plausible alternative capitalisations (such as Title Case) are a Good Thing. I've never seen any remotely convincing evidence for why disamiguators are different. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing has changed since the RFCs. Paradoctor (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) ; added image 21:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As pointed out every time search suggestions (the image) are brought up at RFD, this is only true for a subset of ways people navigate Wikipedia. Users, including but not limited to those following links, entering the URI directly, or using some third-party search methods will not end up at a page that doesn't match the capitalisation of their search directly. What happens then depends on a combination of multiple factors, but some will be one click/tap away from the page they want others will be up to at least three clicks/taps away. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you find it so frustrating because others don't find your argument convincing? This may be a case of touring the sticks.
    third-party search Just for kicks, I tried a few external search engines with the query "London (Disambiguation)". Unsurprisingly, all of them returned London (disambiguation) as their first hit. If you go through the search API, you go directly there. Paradoctor (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You not being convinced doesn't mean others weren't, so please don't act like they're silly for saying their peace. Thryduulf's argument in a previous RfD actually made me reconsider my view and realize how silly I was for supporting the deletion of alternative capitalizations of disambiguators. As if editors would never accidentally or mistakenly capitalize one, eh? As if these capitalizations are somehow detrimental and damaging, or unhelpful. I think what's silly is to act like they're saying something ludicrous. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    like they're silly for saying their piece Please don't put words in my mouth. Thryduulf complained in their edit summary about not getting through to others with their argument. I suggested that they might not have given enough consideration to changing their approach, which hasn't worked. It's one of my more hard-earned lessons from contributing in this place that being Right™ and being agreed to are different things. As Lonestone put it, doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result is not zielführend. Paradoctor (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between not being convinced by an argument and pretending that argument does not exist. It's fine to think that disadvantaging a proportion of readers is OK, what is not fine is claiming that nobody will be disadvantaged. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, words are being put in my mouth. Where did I say that "nobody will be disadvantaged"? Maybe you were thinking of somebody else? Maybe I should now complain about not being understood? Paradoctor (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "nobody will be disadvantaged" is implicit in your posting of the image directly above when it has been explained, multiple times, why arguments relating to search suggestions are incorrect and/or misleading (depending how they're phrased). Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is you reading stuff into my words. All I did was let some air out of your argument. You don't have to like it, but don't misrepresent my words. Paradoctor (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You let no air out of my argument, because my argument has always explicitly acknowledged that search suggestions exist and help some people but because they do not help everybody they are not evidence the redirect is unnecessary. Pointing out that search suggestions exist adds nothing to that at all. Pointing out search suggestions exist in combination with an argument that says such redirects are unnecessary is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not my job to convince you. It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.
    That I have not rebutted your every point is because I don't deem it necessary. I've argued to the point where I let the process do the rest. It may not satisfy you, but it does not give you licence to impugn my words as misleading. That is inappropriate. You believe you're right? Fine. Then wait for the close. Or talk to someone else. The only thing you can achieve here is badgering me. Paradoctor (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking you to convince me, or to agree with me. I'm asking you to acknowledge the existence of arguments that refute yours rather than pretend they don't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again for the hard of hearing: WP:BADGER The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not [...] mean that others are obligated to answer (added emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on the search method of I use, you're 100% correct. The lack of the alternative capitalization has been a hindrance at times. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose "Disambiguation" redirects per my arguments at the linked RfDs. These are useful redirects and deletion harms the encyclopaedia, speedy deletion would be even more harmful. Almost all implausible misspellings of "disambiguation" can be speedy deleted under G6 and/or R3 already, I've not seen any evidence there are enough that can't to justify speedy deletion. Plausible misspellings should be kept like any other plausible misspelling redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As far as I know, obvious and unlikely names can already be speedy deleted. The Banner talk 22:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When a case which R5 would cover goes to RfD, some editors say that it should have been deleted speedily but others oppose the deletion. I'm not sure whether those who oppose disagree that the case is obvious and unlikely, or that CSD includes obvious and unlikely redirects. Either way, it seems that we need to clarify the consensus on this matter. However, if another CSD criterion already covers this case, please suggest a clarification to it rather than creating R5. Certes (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CSD is explicitly only for the most obvious cases. If there is disagreement about whether it should be deleted at all then it's not suitable for speedy deletion. The cases where there is agreement are already unambiguously covered by existing, uncontroversial criteria (G6*, R3 and R4). *G6 isn't completely uncontroversial, but the "unambiguously created in error" part that is relevant here is not controversial) Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is clearly disagreement about whether R5 should become a CSD. Does that make it not a CSD? Is unanimity required for this sort of change, or just consensus? Certes (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It needs to be uncontroversial that every page which could be deleted according to criterion should be deleted. When the discussions show substantial disagreement then it is clearly controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor states that alternative capitalizations should have been speedy deleted then they're wrong. They do not qualify under the existing R3 and G6 rationale, as I've explained to Crouch when they've CSD tagged alternative capitalizations in the past. They're possible search terms, which makes them ineligible for R3, and frankly I'd love to see AnomieBot or something regularly create the alternative capitalizations, similar to how it does with hyphens and en dashes. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope there is no way that systematically cluttering the namespace with more erroneous redirects would gain consensus. Where do we stop? Do we also create 356,000 redirects for each plausible misspelling of "disambiguation"? How about duplicating every qualified article title by creating redirects from miscapitalisation Foo (Film), Foo (Footballer), etc.? Certes (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, why not? It doesn't make Wikipedia worse. They're possibly search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't want to bludgeon the discussion, so I'll back off after this. But can anybody give me one example of how pages with an alternative capitalization on the disambiguator are a net negative and worth spending our time on fighting against? Those are typically piped anyways, so people wouldn't typically notice anyways. I'm always open to changing my mind and view, but over the last year where I've been following that disagreement, I just don't get it, and I really want to. The justification I end up being led to is a a user essay, not a guideline, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If someone convinces me I'll happily change my view and help clean up. But I just genuinely don't get it and feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people are steadfast against alternative capitalizations. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Suppose we have a page that intentionally links to more than 7 dab pages like Joey (name). That page was tagged with {{dablinks}} by User:DPL bot here because the links didn't end with "(disambiguation)" like WP:INTDAB says they should. Once that was fixed, the bot removed the tag. However, had a well meaning editor used "(Disambiguation)" instead in an attempt to fix the problem, the tag would have stayed and the bot would readd it if someone tried to remove it. In that case, the editor trying to fix the problem would be at a loss since all the dab links are correctly marked as such from their perspective. User:JaGa (who should have been notified of this discussion from the beginning) can correct me if I'm wrong.
    Now, considering the hypothetical I described above as well as the fact that the number of people who will be inconvenienced by the absence of such redirects is vanishingly small, is it worth it to keep them? Nickps (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nickps: Would we not have the page link to the proper dab location instead? People linking a redirect by mistake (of say a plausible misspelling) would not be reason enough for redirect variations not to exist. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If a tool used to maintain the encyclopaedia encounters something that makes it behave in an undesirable manner then it needs to be either fixed or replaced with a tool that works properly. We should never degrade the reader experience (such as by breaking links) just to make life easier for editorial tools. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The tool does not behave in an undesirable manner. This is what is supposed to happen. WP:INTDAB says the community has adopted the standard of routing all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects (emphasis in the original). This isn't just a faulty assumption by a bot author, there is consensus behind it. Even if we decide that we should keep redirects of the form "... (Disambiguation)", "... (DISAMBIGUATION)" etc., there is no reason to change INTDAB or User:DPL bot's behavior. We will just have to replace every mainspace link that points to such a page with the correctly capitalized version. The reason I still want to delete those pages is because I don't think such a process is worth it. Nickps (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the bot is failing to recognise intentional redirects to disambiguation pages as intentional redirects to disambiguation pages that is undesirable. Even if we decide that we should keep redirects of the form [...] We will just have to replace every mainspace link that points to such a page with the correctly capitalized version.[citation needed].
    The purpose of routing intentional links to disamiguation pages via redirects is so that they can be distinguished from unintentional links to disambiguation pages. The capitalisation (or indeed spelling) of the redirect is completely irrelevant to that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think INTDAB should stay exactly as is since if we changed it to allow alternative capitalizations, that'd cause intended dab links to be inconsistent with each other, which would look unprofessional. All lowercase "disambiguation" should absolutely be a house style for dab links, even if we allow alternate capitalizations to exist. At best, we could have a bot recognize that those links are intentional and change them to the correct version, but we should not let them stand. Nickps (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After carefully re-reading that comment three times, I can't believe that I understood it correctly. Is it seriously suggesting that any old qualifier that looks a bit like "(disambiguation)" will do and, rather than correcting such errors, we should leave them in place and rewrite our processes and software to allow anyone to misspell the word however they like? Certes (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not understood the comment correctly. I'm saying that we could choose to allow any string that resembled "disambiguation" and still achieve the goal of distinguishing intentional and unintentional links to disambiguation pages. This means that if we want to restrict it to a subset of that then it has to be for other reasons than simply achieving the goal. Personally I think "disambiguation", "Disambiguation" and "DISAMBIGUATION" should all be identified as correct; other capitalisations and any commonly-encountered misspellings (if there are any) should be changed to one of those three by a bot, and misspellings should be flagged for human attention.
    What I didn't say, but should have done, is that regardless of what we choose to accept for internal links that is completely independent of which redirects should be kept for the benefit of people searching or following links from external websites (in the same we keep almost all other redirects from plausible but incorrect capitalisations despite not linking to them internally) Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; that's clearer. I think that any hypothetical bot should correct other capitalisations in links along with known misspellings, as we currently do manually. That is a discussion for another place but, if we find consensus that INTDAB links to Foo (DISAMBIGUATION) are a good thing, then we should retain redirects of that name rather than deleting them speedily (or slowly), and possibly create the 99.999% of them which are currently missing. That is indeed a different question from whether we should retain such redirects for searching or external links. Certes (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its quite simple, if you think "Foo (Disambiguation)" or even "Foo (DISAMBIGUATION)" redirects are useful then get consensus to have a bot create all of them. Either readers and editors find them useful, in which case they should all be created or they don't, in which case they should all be deleted unless an exception applies. And if we think things out well as you said in the London discussion (its not clear if you're referring to the individual or mass creation as "well thought out") then we would realize that it is not good use of editor time to create and patrol random DAB redirects rather than create them when a bot. Again this is different to other types of redirects like where one redirect for an alternative name is used while the other isn't. All DAB pages have the same function and the (im)plausibility applies to all such titles regardless of if someone arbitrarily creates some. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale: What makes alternative capitalizations on disambiguators any different from alternative capitalization redirects? I don't see people up in arms about alternative caps used for a wide variety of redirects. I'm not arguing for the full caps by any stretch, but I'm not sure consensus is even required for alternative capitalizations. As for, "..then we would realize that it is not good use of editor time to create and patrol random DAB redirects", the bot which automatically patrols a number of redirects typically automatically marks a wide variety of alternative capitalizations as patrolled as well. I don't believe this would add much, if any, burden to the NPP team. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RDAB gives the reasons for DAB pages with incorrect qualifiers and if we wanted them they would be created with the correct templates etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RDAB is an essay that expresses opinions. Some of those reflect widespread consensus, some of those opinions do not, and it makes no effort to distinguish them. It also makes no attempt to justify most of those opinions - e.g. it doesn't give any reasoning why "(Disambiguation)" should be regarded as less correct than "(disambiguation)". Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale: I've read the WP:RDAB essay, but I fail to see how disambiguators using a different capitalization are harmful to the encyclopedia but redirects using alternative capitalization without a disambiguation are not (not that I want other alternative capitalizations deleted, just wanted to ask this again since it wasn't addressed). In short, I'm looking for an explanation and justification other than because a user essay says. I'm trying very hard to understand how the disambiguations in brackets, such as "(Actor)", "(Politician)", or "(Singer)", make the site worse, but no one has offered up a good explanation. Capitalization after the opening bracket certainly isn't unlikely, someone may have just held the shift button a slight bit too long. Newer users also usually aren't familiar with our naming conventions, so it doesn't seem implausible that someone may capitalize what's in brackets not knowing that we don't do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bots which mark redirects as patrolled just look at who created them rather than attempting to triage their title, target, rcats, etc. Being patrolled in this way simply means that a trusted editor thought it should be created (or made a mistake). Certes (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Certes: That's actually not true, the bot will mark certain kinds of redirects as patrolled, even if you aren't on the redirect autopatrol list. See some of the rules for the bot listed at User:DannyS712 bot III/rules. You'll note under bot task #38, point B, focuses on the target and the redirect, comparing the two for differences in capitalization and marking them as patrolled. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for the correction. I remember making suggestions when Danny was writing the bot about what sort of redirects could safely be passed, then I ended up with mine being passed based on author, but I didn't realise both measures were in place. Certes (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have any more suggestions about redirects you think that should be autopatrolled I'd love to hear it @Certes. We recently reached consensus to autopatrol the redirects left behind by page movers when a page is moved (based on the threshold to receive the page mover permission, we should be able to trust the moves made by these users). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll have a think and reply somewhere more relevant. Certes (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot would still make fewer mistakes than a human if programmed correctly and would manage to create consistency. @Hey man im josh and Thryduulf: WP:AFFINITY says or a disambiguated title with one parenthesis missing (the last is an example of an unnatural error; i.e. an error specific to Wikipedia titling conventions that would likely not be arrived at naturally by readers, thereby adding to the implausibility). A title when the error is in brackets (or commas) is generally implausible as its very unlikely anyone will make use of it and as BD2412 said in the 2022 RFD as it stands these excess incoming links are a nuisance to editors trying to fix disambiguation errors. Deleting these will only enable access to the links with the proper capitalization. So with almost no likelihood of use by readers (and if it is likely we should create all) but an inconvenience to editors who's efforts would be better spent of improving other things for our readers I think this along with the 2022 and 26 March RFD that there is a consensus (though weak) that these should not exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that WP:AFFINITY is just a different section of the same essay so you haven't actually answered the question asked. No evidence is presented for the assertion that A title when the error is in brackets (or commas) is generally implausible as its very unlikely anyone will make use of it - indeed in multiple AfDs evidence that people do use some redirects that have "errors" within the parentheses. Deleting these will only enable access to the links with the proper capitalization. As repeatedly explained, this is false - some readers will access the content they are looking for via other links, other readers will not.
    As also mentioned multiple times, the inconvenience to editors can be solved at a stroke by changing the programming of the bot to stop flagging the redirects as errors (and/or by changing them itself). Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence has been presented to support the claim that readers will benefit from a few random qualified redirects to DAB pages while multiple editors who fix DAB linked have expressed the point that they inconvenience editors. In a few cases evidence has been presented that they get a few views and have a few links but that doesn't show the viewers would actually have been inconvenienced as its likely the readers would have landed on the correctly capitalized version first time and the links would be corrected/wouldn't have been made to the incorrect title "A redirect that has other wikipages linked to it is not necessarily a good reason for keeping it. Current internal wikilinks can be updated to point to the current title.". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "No evidence presented" – Seriously? There absolutely has been evidence that these can be useful. It's funny considering the crux of your argument is a user essay and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As mentioned, the bots can be tweaked. Please ping me when you propose another rationale to delete all alternative capitalizations on Wiki because of people mistakenly linking to a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: From what I can see leaving aside the linkrot arguments that were presented in the 2022 discussion (but obviously not in the 2024 discussion) the main reason for keeping them was that some people navigate using direct URLs rather than the search box but there wasn't any reason to believe that its likely many will do that for the very small number of them that exist. And I didn't write the essay which is in the project space not userspace though I did add a "See also" to an essay I write years ago and have commented on the talk page, see WP:PERESSAY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When asked for a reason other than "this user essay, that presents no evidence to back up its assertions, says so" you point to... a user essay that doesn't even discuss the topic, let alone present relevant evidence? Why do you think that is relevant?
    Your other argument is "evidence was presented in discussions that people use these redirects" as evidence for your assertion that people don't use these redirects. That's not convincing me you are listening to what people are saying to you. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: WP:RDAB is not a WP:User essay (yes it was a user essay in the past but its been in the project space for nearly 8 years) its a project essay that as noted I haven't really contributed to and most people support even though a significant minority oppose it. I'm just going by the consensus of which COSTLY has been cited in hundreds of RFDs over many years so its not my personal preference I'm going by what the consensus is which appears to be that they should be deleted. RDAB specifically discusses redirects with incorrect qualifiers. That's not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. If you want a reason other than based on the project space essay then I'd argue that those created accidentally (and were moved to the correct case) are borderline G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those which are G6 can and should be deleted under that criterion so a new one isn't needed. Of the rest, firstly there aren't that many (so a new criterion isn't needed) and secondly not all of them should be deleted reducing the number even further. Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale:
    • WP:RDAB states: This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
    • WP:RDAB is not a WP:User essay – The point is it's an essay created by a few people, not policy, so the semantics of it don't really matter. These things have a habit of not changing beyond the original's writers intentions, otherwise people encourage someone to write another essay.
    • I haven't really contributed to and most people support even though a significant minority oppose it – You may not have contributed to it, but you're using it as the primary rationale when arguing for additional CSD criteria to be added. As you mention though, a significant minority oppose it, meaning this suggestion does not fit the criteria of being uncontroversial.
    • RDAB specifically discusses redirects with incorrect qualifiers.Template:R from incorrect disambiguation and Template:R from miscapitalisation both exist as relevant categories and are accepted types of redirects, by and large. It's unclear how a mis/alternative capitalization in brackets makes the search time suddenly in valid.
    • If you want a reason other than based on the project space essay then I'd argue that those created accidentally (and were moved to the correct case) are borderline G6. – I've been begging for a reason other than the essay. As mentioned though, I fail to see what makes an alternative/miscapitalization of the first letter of a disambiguator an unlikely search term and an unhelpful redirect.
    Thryduulf and I have presented numerous examples of how these redirects are possibly useful, but throughout the discussion you keep coming back to RDAB. Whether you want to use the words or not, this absolutely boils down to a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: An essay that has been endorsed by the majority of people does appear to have consensus. Yes PANDORA is clearly controversial but RDAB appears to be less so even though it is still controversial. CHEAP is also an essay which has existed longer which has also been used by numerous people and IDONTLIKEIT which I don't think apples here is also one.
    Yes that is a reason against it but many CSD criteria are also somewhat controversial. If there is a weak consensus it may be useful to have it.
    Such templates are used on redirects but redirects with implausible or malformatted qualifiers are also commonly deleted at RFD.
    Though policies and guidelines are stronger arguments as noted essays can still be used to argue things on Wikipedia. In any case as noted both the 2022 and 2024 RFDs neither of which were started by me resulted in a consensus to delete. You don't have to agree with that consensus and are free to argue against it but to claim IDONTLIKEIT in face of those RFDs seems a bit odd.
    The main arguments you and Thryduulf have presented are direct URL entering and the fact people have thought it necessary to create them but as noted it doesn't appear readers are likely to find them useful due to the qualifiers being WP specific and the way the search box goes. Though I would say its hard to provide evidence either way though I accept incoming links is evidence of this. I'd also give more weight to what users who use/participate in the DAB fixing tools than what I think and as noted multiple such people have complained about them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: An essay that has been endorsed by the majority of people – Citation needed.
I actually didn't mention the URL stuff. I said that it's easily possible, and likely that it happens all the time, where one user is typing and holds the shift button a little too long when adding a bracket, only to accidentally capitalize the first letter of the disambiguator. I have also said that I fail to see how these are harmful redirects. As we've also repeatedly mentioned when you bring up the search, the auto fill and drop down of options when you've partially typed in the search box doesn't work in every scenario, as you're suggesting. As such, it's then easy to see how a redirect from a typo / miscapitalization could be useful.
I keep going back to IDONTLIKEIT because the focus of this discussion has been largely on the content of an essay that doesn't make any argument for why the redirects are harmful or detrimental. If there isn't an argument besides an essay and "they were deleted before", then that's IDONTLIKEIT.
I'd also give more weight to what users who use/participate in the DAB fixing tools than what I think and as noted multiple such people have complained about them. – Do you give weight to the people who review the redirects? I see alternative capitalization all the time, and when it's just on the first letter of a word I always mark it as reviewed for the reason that it could be helpful to someone.
Franky I don't care at all about PANDORA in this situation. As an NPP coordinator / the leading redirect reviewer since over the past year and a half, I can attest that it's no extra work for reviewers (alt capitalizations are already auto reviewed) and we could ask Anome to have their bot auto create these like they do for titles with an en dash in the (the redirects they create use hyphens).
In short, the alternative capitalization of the first letter is harmless, it's possibly useful, and it's not an improvement to the Wiki to delete these. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Directet URL entry is simply one example of a case-sensitive method of navigating Wikipedia, it is not the only one. Many of these redirects have non-trivial numbers of page views, which is objectively evidence of them being used and, given they lead unambiguously to the only correct target, evidence of utility.
If there is a weak consensus it may be useful to have [a CSD criterion]. is absolutely incorrect. CSD is explicitly only for the most obvious cases where everything that could be deleted by a criterion should be deleted, according to consensus. Situations where the is only a weak consensus at best cannot meet those requirements. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh and Thryduulf: I don't know a huge amount about how DAB fixes work and how these interfere with it but User:Certes does appear to so may be able to explain better. In terms of caring about readers (or editors) using the redirects I'd argue its more confusing to have such redirects for a small number than not at all and if we thought such redirects were useful we would just get a bot to create all of them meaning such searches would always work rather than working in a small number of cases similar to the comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24#Absolutely every malformed disambiguation without parentheses. So if we care about people being able to use such redirects why not do it for all. Personally I'm normally an inclusionist but I think such redirects are outside that, on a similar note just because I think its a good idea to have a separate article on every municipality and census settlement and even other settlements doesn't mean I would think its a good idea to have an article on every farm or building. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, because there's not enough of the redirects of this style you're arguing it's more confusing? We could easily request AnomieBot be configured to create these types of redirects. As for the linked AfD, that's an entirely different set of potential disambiguations which are less likely than the likely possibility of accidently using an alternative capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think helping people find the page they are looking for on some occasions is much better than going out of our way to never help them, but if creating a "(Disambiguation)" redirect to match every "(disambiguation)" page or redirect is what it takes to stop making the encyclopaedia harder to navigate then let's just do that. As for the linked RfD, you will see that I argued to keep those that are navigationally useful so I'm not sure why you think that example of OTHERSTUFF is helpful to your argument? Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixing is needed after an editor links to a dab such as Mercury when they meant Mercury (planet). Very occasionally, we really do want a link to the dab. (For other uses, see Mercury). To mark such cases so we don't keep checking them repeatedly, we apply WP:INTDAB and link to [[Mercury (disambiguation)|Mercury]]. Experienced dab fixers know to skip such links, and so do tools which produce reports such as Disambiguation pages with links. They don't skip (Disambiguation), (DISAMBIGUATION) or (Disrandomtypotion), so links to such redirects would have to be checked again and again. Eventually, they would mount up and dwarf the actual errors. At that point, we would have no alternative but to give up and just leave all the bad links for our readers to follow. In fact, if (Disambiguation) redirects are created systematically, I for one will see no point in continuing this work and will give up immediately. Certes (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Yes I know you !voted to keep but Josh !voted to delete which is who I was asking that particular question to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes alternatively, the tools could just be adjusted so they don't mark "(Disambiguation)" etc as errors - indeed as they aren't errors they shouldn't marked as such at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except capitalisation of first letter, so I think this should be reworded to exclude that if it passes. As countless RfDs leading to WP:SNOW-level deletions (and amusing the daily logs to become massive) have shown, these redirects are completely unnecessary, unhelpful to the point that they are WP:COSTLY and should not exist, and they have clogged up the RfD log from discussions many times in the past. Therefore, this speedy deletion category is needed so that these can be deleted efficiently without wasting time or space at RfD. However, unlike the redirect types outlined at WP:RDAB and the other categories, there is a small chance that redirects with the alternate capitalisation can be useful. Even though this chance is small, I still think it is enough to justify a full discussion at RfD rather than speedy deletion. Leaving only this type of redirect for RfD is not enough to clog the daily log up with discussions, so I see this arrangement as a win-win where the unhelpful, unnecessary WP:RDAB-type redirects are speedily deleted as they should while redirects with a small chance of usefulness get a full RfD discussion without filling the log up with discussions. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think at least some (if not all) of the text currently at WP:RDAB should be added to the speedy deletion criterion definition to specify which types of redirects fall under this criterion to avoid confusion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If first-letter capitalization (Foo (Disambiguation)) is excluded, then no evidence has been presented that this happens at all, let alone frequently enough. And Foo (desambiguation) is either an R3 or needs more than one pair of eyes anyway. No argument to answer. —Cryptic 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it is rare for people to capitalise "Disambiguation" or said word in all caps. "desambiguation" is a typo that would obviously be qualified for R3 anyways. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 10:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Things that are rare fail WP:NEWCSD requirement 3. Also "rare" is not the same thing as "harmful". Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We already have criteria for the most obvious misspelling issues, redirects are cheap, deleting a redirect using other than CSD isn't exactly a burden on the system. I don't see this as solving a real issue, but it could cause some. Dennis Brown - 06:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Thryduulf and Dennis Brown. R3 suffices for most cases, and the rest can go to RfD. This is simply not a significant problem. – bradv 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support these routinely get deleted at RfD; there is no reason to have the same debate 1000 times when the merits remain the same every single time. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: gods, are we still arguing about this? Per Thryduulf and my previous comments. These rarely do any harm. Cremastra (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, aren't we discussing something similar above? It feels like this proposal should have been incorporated into that RfC, perhaps as a secondary question. Regardless, support; there is consensus from countless RfD discussions, not merely from the wording at RDAB, that these redirects are not helpful and should be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are properly separate because they deal with different things, only one of which meets the requirements for a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would be okay with this if we limit it to recently created redirects (similar to how A10 and R3 are limited to recently created redirects). Without this qualification, I oppose the change. For redirects that have existed a long time, the small maintenance benefit of deleting them doesn't outweigh the risk of breaking incoming external links (WP:RFD#KEEP point 4). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: add a "recency" clause to G4

I propose to add a clause to WP:G4 (recreations of deleted articles) to restrict the criterion to recreations of recently deleted pages. Proposed changes:

This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page recently deleted via its most recent as the result of a deletion discussion. [...]

(There is a footnote following "deletion discussion" explaining that the most recent deletion discussion determines the validity of this criterion, so I don't think that needs to be awkwardly shoehorned into the criterion itself.)

I have noticed a trend lately of editors tagging articles with this criterion and linking to a "most recent" discussion that is many years old, both for pages recently created, and for pages which were recreated shortly after their deletion discussion but have hung around for many years without issue. A problem with G4 is that non-admins can't see the deleted version to compare to, but I don't think it's reasonable to presume that no new information is available many years later, nor is it reasonable to assume that an editor creating an article on a topic which was deleted many years ago is recreating an identical article, and so these tags don't meet the "objective" nor the "uncontestable" provisions of speedy deletion. This criterion is meant to capture obvious attempts to evade deletion, but the current scope is too broad. I don't have a suggestion for defining "recently" but we have similar clauses in other criteria.

  • Support as proposer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure whether this is necessary because a substantially identical version can appear the same after 3 months or 3 years. An objective reference point could be that if the new version cites at least one reliable source more recent than the last deletion discussion, G4 is unlikely to apply. However, I'm unsure if the frequency of "gaming" such a criterion (i.e., shoehorning a recent source into an article otherwise identical to the one deleted) would be high enough to merely discourage such tagging, or low enough that such pages can safely be automatically disqualified from G4. Complex/Rational 14:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The question is not whether the deletion was recent, the question is whether the reasons for deletion still apply. —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pretty much per Kusma - this IMO defeats the point. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long generally would have to go by to prevent G4? I don't think anything less than 10 or 5 years would be a good idea especially since our inclusion criteria often get stricter. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kusma. In some cases previous discussions stay relevant for over a decade, in others they're obsolete within weeks. I am open to clarification regarding when it applies, but a nebulous "recent" is not it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The points raised in a deletion discussion don't automatically become invalid because time has passed since the discussion. Adding this restriction to G4 would just force us to open more discussions where we restate arguments that were raised years before, and Wikipedia has enough active deletion discussions as is. Glades12 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new or modified criterion: clear SALT evasion

This proposal is for a criterion for deletion of articles which are obvious recreations of any article that is create protected. This is possibly already partly covered by WP:G4 (though only for "substantially identical" recreations) or WP:G5 (though that is based on the editor, not the topic) but I would like to create an explicit, articles-only criterion for this (so as to except legitimate drafts). Proposed wording:

Axx: Unambiguous creations of a topic protected against creation. This applies to any article, having any title, that is an unambiguous creation of any topic that has been protected from creation under any title, or is an unambiguous attempt to evade the title blacklist. This criterion does not apply to drafts approved by articles for creation nor content recreated by a request for undeletion or deletion review. It also does not apply if the page creator holds the userrights to override the creation protection, though it is expected that users creating a protected page will have consulted with the protecting administrator first.

  • Support as proposer. Open to suggestions for wording, of course. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that this is needed, and if it is, it should be via clarification of G4 instead of a new A criterion. Why should it not apply in Wikipedia space? —Kusma (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, oppose, this seems backwards. SALT is there to help enforce G4, we shouldn't add secondary criteria to deal with people going around the tool that helps us deal with G4. —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An admin can salt a title for any reason whatsoever. This criterion would give any admin unilateral power to declare any topic speedy-deletable. -- King of ♥ 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If whatever's created in defiance of a salting isn't already speedyable, then the salting isn't valid. Evasion of salting is an indicator that we need to escalate to other tools - typically some combination of blacklisting, blocking, and edit filters - not just to deescalate to simple deletion, which has already shown itself to be inadequate by the very fact that it's salted to begin with. —Cryptic 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose G4 seems sufficient, as noted an admin can protect a page sometimes if its only re created a few times and then sometimes 10\20 years down the line someone completely different wants to create a page sometimes on a completely different topic. Personally I'd rethink if we should even be salting many pages anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mostly per Cryptic. G4 already applies to pages with any title, so for pages that are substantially identical this is redundant. For pages that are not substantially identical, then if they are not already speediable under a different criterion then we should not be speedy deleting them - not least because some of them will have addressed the reason for the first deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose G4 already covers this, and is intentionally broad in that you can delete virtually any title if it is substantially similar. Adding a new cat would likely muddy the waters. I don't see the need to even tweak G4, but if it needed it, that would be better than a new cat of CSD. Additionally, if a user is creating multiple articles to bypass SALT, they typically get blocked for WP:DE, and any SALT bypassing article they create using a sock can be deleted under G5 or G4. Dennis Brown - 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per King of Hearts. Galobtter (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the original page met a CSD, then the same criterion can be used to delete it under any other title. If the page was deleted after an XfD, then you can use G4 regardless of the new title. If neither is true, an admin shouldn't have deleted the page in the first place let alone used the salt feature. Glades12 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clickable icons to CSD template

Hello, I've proposed adding a clickable icon to the speedy deletion tags. Please visit Template talk:Db-meta#Add clickable icon to participate in the proposal. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (U3A)

I am proposing a new criteria:

  • U3: A user page which is the exact same content as an existing page, and which have no reason to do so. This would only apply to the main user page, not others.

Feel free to comment. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going to create a new UCSD, it would be U6 (WP:U3 was previously non-free image galleries in userspace). If I understand the proposal correctly, would this be to deal with WP:COPIES issues? If so, I support such a CSD (see WP:MFD, which is currently flooded with COPIES issues). However, the wording needs some work (in particular, to add a grace period for temporary drafting). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no reason these pages should be deleted instead of blanked or redirected to the page they copy from. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand the situation or the use case. If it's someone's own userpage, they can use U1. If it's someone else's, then there might be a reason the proposer does not know. CMD (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need. If they copy a page over from mainspace to their page without attribution, we can delete it as a copyvio, technically speaking. Most of the time I've seen people do this, they are using the user page as a sandbox and just don't know they have a sandbox. They may either be preparing a major rewrite, or just trying to learn how to do things. Both circumstances mean they need to use a sandbox, but it isn't particularly disruptive. The only problems I typically see with "articles" on userpages are copies of deleted articles, without attribution, because they are trying to push them back into mainspace. We already handle those via G4 or G12, even tho it isn't in article space. I guess my point is, I don't see what problem this would fix when we already have plenty of tools to deal with actual problems on user's pages. Dennis Brown - 07:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dennis Brown and Pppery. Deletion isn't needed in the majority of cases and we have existing criteria available for what it is. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting from a "copyvio" perspective that attribution can easily be provided in an edit summary (e.g. "text here copied from XYZ") and almost never requires G12 (and in fact most times is a bit of IAR when deleting as such). Primefac (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but a little bit of discussion (or totality of circumstances) can usually tell you if deletion or education is the solution. Dennis Brown - 09:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • G12 specifically excludes copies from Wikipedia: "free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do[es] not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion". Copying within Wikipedia is allowed for a reason and it's easy to repair "bad" copies; please don't delete unattributed copies under G12. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't what I was proposing. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to the comments saying that G12 could be used to delete unattributed copies; I wasn't commenting on your proposal specifically. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COPIES and the section below it deals with this. This criteria seems like a good idea but I don't think would pass NEWCSD due to being potentially bity and cases where someone needed a copy to work on before adding to the mainspace article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: new criteria for duplicate drafts

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.



Hi. I'm proposing that a new criteria be added for speedy deletion of drafts, which are duplicated by an existing, rejected draft. Any thoughts? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect rather than deleting. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SRE. Rejected draft? Redirect to the rejected draft. Do not review, using AfC tools or otherwise, a content fork. If your redirecting is reverted, take it to MfD. Only MfD could generate compelling data to support a WP:NEWCSD for draftspace, like it did for G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others here. Redirecting requires no criterion and usually works. Same for drafts that duplicate an existing article (and are not someone actively working on an improvement to that article). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't necessary. If it's a duplicate of another draft just redirect or merge them, if it's a duplicate of an article (and not an attempt to improve it) then redirect to that article. If it's actively causing problems for some reason, and doesn't somehow meet an existing criterion, then explain that at MfD. In every other case, doing anything other than waiting for G13 is a waste of time and effort. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Leave a Reply