|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
}}
}}
__NOINDEX__
<!--Begin discussion-->
== RFC new R5 ==
==Applying A* criteria to <big>'''submitted'''</big> drafts==
A proposal was made in the section above about discussing the wisdom of applying all, or possibly a subset of, the CSD-A? criteria to ''submitted'' drafts and one of the participants requested that discussion on that topic not take place within the original thread.
*'''Comment''' No immediate opinion the matter. Just opening a section to facilitate discussion. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:135%;color:#886600">Jbh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup> Talk</sup></span>]] 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'd like to support something like this for A7, but don't see a workable option. Specifically, new editors should get at least one chance to find offline sources, etc. if their initial proposal is declined, as well as to let them know that deletion is a possible outcome (in case they may want to maintain a copy elsewhere). Requiring at least two (or three) declines before a CSD occurs limits the "speedy"-ness of the action, but might be reasonable. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 18:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
* I think that many of the article criteria are unsuitable for drafts. For example, I don't think that it's a good idea to delete a draft only because there's no evidence that the subject is notable; the user should be allowed to correct the draft instead. If the criterion is changed so that the draft only is deleted after the user has been given a reasonable amount of time, then it's pointless to use notability article criteria as the page eventually will meet criterion G13 anyway. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 19:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715454067}}
This proposal needs to be properly workshopped and presented. Comments are welcome but let's not go too far down the road of judging it yet. We get a lot of pages about random high schoolers that shoild not be left untagged for deletion for 5 minutes after a responsible editor sees them. There is a large increase in AfC submissions (over 5 times more year over year) because of how we now direct new users who want to create new pages, and that is with ACTRIAL turned off. We are in different circumstances today. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions]] for some interesting stats. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
* Reviewers know when the topic is completely hopeless, just look at some example. Submission of the draft means they are trying to put it into mainspace, and when it is a fantasy story based on their mine craft experience one day, it is impossible that a new source will help. NPReviewers already have the judgement and discretion to know when to draftify an A7 and when to simply tag it. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
*'''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)
* Ever since ACTRIAL started, the deluge of new content went from NPP to AfC. However, it doesn't seem right to, say, A7 a submitted draft on it's first submission. That said, we need measures to deal with 8-times-declined drafts, nonstarters, and other problematic drafts. What about expanding PROD to draftspace? [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 23:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
*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)
** Oppose Prod. Drafts are not watched, draft prod amounts to a nonobjective CSD. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
***True,butsoisG13toan extent. [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]])23:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
*'''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)
**** G13iscompletelyobjective.Prodisassumedtobesubjective. A speedy deletion need not be“speedy”,it can have a delay time, but is expectedtomeetthefournewcriterioncriteria,listedatthetopof thispage. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:47, 8 April 2018 (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)
***** I mean, G13 gives carte blanche to admins to delete any page that hasn't been edited in six months. That's the only criterion. Also, I retract the DraftPROD idea. [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 23:52, 8 April 2018 (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)
* Ultimately this comes don to a balancing act between not wasting our AfC reviewer's time reviewing Ax eligible pages over and over again, vs not biting the new comers. The question then becomes how many times we let them resubmit before we put our foot down and say enough. I trust everyone can see why both deleting after the first submission and allowing dozens of virtually unimproved submissions are both very bad ideas. I'd propose three submissions as the line between those two bad things, After three Ax eligible submissions, just delete it.[[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 23:57, 8 April 2018 (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)
** Good point. I think that drafts that are Ax worthy and not being improved at all, should be deleted. [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 00:15, 9 April 2018 (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)
** When a draft submission is so unsuitable that it immediately fits A7 or A11, and there are many of these, the kindest thing to do is to give the author a timely message. Timely means immediately. A submission about their minecraft cave system for example, it is to no one's benefit for them to be told a reviewer doesn't ''think'' is it suitable, but they are encouraged to edit it to improve it and then resubmit it. Deletion, immediate deletion is the best thing for the content, it was the wrong way to go. The automated A7 / A11 sorry text that the author receives is politely, positively and constructively worded. The newcomer needs to focus on that response, not on the unsuitable text they submitted. At AfC, they are working on a harder "Rejected" response, which will help, but that is for things that are in the opinion of the reviewer not notable, but not so bad as to be speediable. Much is speediable, or should be speediable. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:24, 9 April 2018 (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)
* [[Draft:Apartment 220]], for example. Clearly should be deleted, with the author messaged accordingly. There are many of these. They are always SNOW deleted at MfD, where they waste time and space, creating and consuming more space and editorial time that even close to what the author invested in the page. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
* [[Draft:NeonHabari(bioandbackground)]]isanother.--[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:12, 9 April 2018 (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 Banner</span>]] [[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 [[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>]] | [[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>]] | [[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¢</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]] | [[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]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 13:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
== Proposal: new criteria for duplicate drafts ==
*Some web content examples. Brand new (at time of submission) facebook page.[[Draft:IdsView]] no amount of editing is going to help that. Another brand new website [[Draft:KickNtheBalls]]. [[Draft:Loki doki]] and to get another reviewer [[Draft:Loki Doki]] [[Draft:Mind Bending Thumb Bending]] and [[Draft:Never Have Ever]] [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 01:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
{{atop
** Some, not all, of them are G11-eligible. G11 doesn't require the authors ''intent'' to be promotion, but if the sole effect of the page is to promote a facebook link, that's G11. A7 has the advantage of not impugning an author's intention intention to promote and brings up the A7 threshold of te indication of importance as the starting point for a new article. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
| status = withdrawn
*A small group of admins want to interpret CSD very narrowly while many absolutely non-notable pages are a stretch for G11 simply because there is nothing on the page that is worth promoting. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
| 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)
}}
*The problem with expanding any A-criteria to draft-space (except the fact that Draft-space was conceived as a place to work on stuff in peace without risking deletion) is that we cannot trust all users and admins to really only tag and delete the problematic drafts that have no chance of ever becoming an article. What some might bemoan as a "very narrow" interpretation is actually an attempt to prevent mistakes. If only 1 out of 10 deletions is a mistake, it also means that we lose 10% of content that ''should'' be included and (likely) 99% of the editors who created those pages. Personally, I find this too high a price to pay, considering the fact that we keep losing editors anyway.<br/>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should keep all those drafts per se, although no one has so far given a good reason what the harm would be in just waiting until they become stale and then G13'ing them, considering that those pages are not indexed and thus not seen by the outside world (people resubmitting a rejected draft without changes is not a problem with the draft and should be handled by sanctioning the editor). But I don't see a way to ''objectively'' codify this in a way to prevent the aforementioned mistakes. For example, someone recently raised the case [[Draft:Steve Negron]] on my talk page which so far has five rejections despite the subject meeting [[WP:NPOL#1]] as a state legislator. As such, it would now meet the suggested criteria for deletion (see above) and would likely be deleted by an admin with a "loose" interpretation of speedy deletion (despite never ever meeting A7 if it were in article-space). In the end, this seems a solution that might lead to babies being thrown out with the bathwater and considering the amount of A7-mistakes made in article space, it's hard to envision that there will be less such mistakes in Draft-space. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b>]] 09:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
** [[User:SoWhy]], the harm would be in just waiting until they become stale and then G13'ing them is the lack of timely response to the author. Especially kid vanity and trolling, A7s and A11s that don’t deserve a week at MfD, but are patently unsuitable. It is not kinder to not tell the author what we know, and the auto-messaging of A7 and A11 is exactly what they need. Making submitted drafts eligible for A7 and A11 doesn't mean the reviewer has to speedy delete, but it is easy for reviewers to see that to leave the page live in draftspace is the wrong message and can only waste further time, whether author time, or reviewer time. G13 is for abandoned, it is not meant to be slow deletion for things that need immediate deletion. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 21:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
***{{re|SmokeyJoe}} But don't they get a response that their draft is unsuitable when it gets rejected? So they are getting informed, aren't they? The question was, is there a reason why we have to ''delete'' them if those pages are not visible to the outside world anyway. After all, all speedy deletion carries the risk of good content being removed mistakenly so the benefits have to outweigh those risks significantly. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b>]] 07:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
**** [[User:SoWhy]], I’m largely working off the reaction of others who feel the patently hopeless crap (see the examples I have listed) is so offensive to them that they feel the need to dump it on mfd, where it takes up space, dilutes the quality of work there, and gets SNOW deleted, but in balance I think they are right. Currently, DraftSpace errs far on the side of preserving patently hopeless crap, at least for the six months following the author giving up. I am bothered by how slow that giving up process is. The fact that the patently hopeless made up story does not get deleted, but remains live with functional “edit” tabs, means to some patent crap submitters that they can continue to play the game. The number of good topics deleted I think is very small. Even the afc promoted articles are pretty mediocre, mostly orphan permastubs that don’t really pass notability but are so boring no deletionist will bother. The article about the high school dormitory bathroom, or the minecraft tunnel experience, it hurts the sanity of the reviewers to have no disposal route for them. If it were me, I’d make a {{tl|Userpage blanked}} version for draftspace and replace the patently hopeless submission, easily reverted if I make a mistake, an abundantly clear message to the author, but I’m pushing for the sanity of the reviewers. Some make coherent arguments for why blanking is not good enough. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 10:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
* How many are we talking about? I have MfD'd hopeless drafts before now, it doesn't seem to cause much burden. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
*As with previous proposals, I 1. remain unconvinced that there is any need for this, and 2. believe it to be antithetical to the whole point of drafts. ~ <span style="color:#F09">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 14:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
*The draft namespace is for allowing editors time to work on a proposed article without the possibility that it will be summarily deleted. The AFC submission is to allow the editor to get feedback on how to improve the article so it won't be summarily deleted in the main space. If we give a new editor one shot at getting a draft right we might as well shut down the draft namespace and AFC. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 14:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
::There are thousands of declines, often multiple declines, that are clear A7 material where no amount of editing will help them. Draft space is for working on potential articles, not for developing and submitting material with zero chance of having a place in mainspace. Removing the junk helps us find and work with the promising much easier. Editors with almost no experience at AfC or MfD will raise uninformed philosophical objections unfortunately which just makes the work of ArC harder. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
:::I think you've mixed up your criteria; you say {{tq|clear A7 material}}, but {{tq|no amount of editing will help}} is fundamentally a statement about notability. A7 is not "not notable." ~ <span style="color:#F09">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 18:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
:::I think he meant there is no way to write a credible claim of significance because there is no claim of significance for the person/organization/whatever. From what I've seen, many articles tagged under A7 pertain to a subject that has essentially no significance and "no amount of editing will help". However, there are definitely a few articles that fail to state significance, but a bit of research shows they are: deleting those submitted drafts under A7 would be damaging. I don't know whether we can say any new editor can find a 'credible claim of significance' in three tries, especially with the limited guidance given in the templates of declined draft submissions. [[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Appable|contributions]]) 18:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
::Nobody is arguing one shot to get it right, we're arguing three shots to get it non-speedyable. Surely you see the opposite side where submitting hopeless drafts over and over again is a wasteful drain on the community's resources? [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 17:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
:::{{u|Tazerdadog}} editors are clearly arguing one shot to get it right. SmokeyJoe uses [[Draft:Taylor Evans]] as an example of why we should do this. It has been submitted and declined once. Legacypac uses [[Draft:Greenwich Music School]] as an example and it also has been submitted and declined once. I do see the drain if pages are submitted multiple times with no or little improvement. That is a user conduct issue and can be dealt with as disruptive editing. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 18:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
*As people have noted above these proposals miss the point of draft space. The whole idea is that if you need to work on a page without the threat that it will be deleted due to failing standards XYZ then you can work on it in draft space until it is up to scratch and then move it to mainspace. Deleting pages in draft space for failing standards XYZ makes this meaningless. This proposal wouldn't allow people any time at all to address certain decline reasons because the draft would be deleted shortly after it was declined. Anyone saying that these pages are causing loads of work at MfD needs to actually have a look there: as I write this there are a whopping 36 drafts nominated for deletion, many of which wouldn't qualify for this anyway. AfC reviewers are in my experience very harsh, I wouldn't conclude that a topic is hopeless from the fact that one has declined a submission. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
::Agreed, and this is still true for the "three-strikes" or "n-strikes" ideas. If I were new and didn't understand A7, being told I have one more submission before the article could be deleted unilaterally would be threatening: the point of draft-space is to avoid those situations. [[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Appable|contributions]]) 18:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No one is talking about a full notability test A7 is "A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)" which is a much lower standard. Reviewers are not typically sending the pages to MfD but declining them, then declining again, until someday it hits G13. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
:That's the intent, but A7 is misapplied all the time in mainspace. Its bar often strays closer to "notability" than it really should. In mainspace this can be justified to some extent: there is a standard of quality. In draftspace, that isn't true anymore. [[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Appable|contributions]]) 18:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No one is talking about a full notability test as "A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)" which is a much lower standard. Reviewers are not typically sending the pages to MfD but declining them, then declining again, until someday it hits G13. Admins would use the same A7 standard with no change so it would not be up to afc reviewers only. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
* discussion seems to have wandered from the OP which was about '''submitted''' drafts. Please don't discuss as though "any old draft" were being considered. thx [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
*:Yes, but some people may be unclear as to what a ''submitted'' draft actually is - they may assume that it means a page saved to draft space, as opposed to a page in draft space that has had a {{tlx|AFC submission}} added to it. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
* See [[Draft:The Bucket Wars]] at MfD. It should not be allowed to be submitted two more times. It is bad faith, it is trolling. Per [[WP:DENY]], I argue that it should not be given its weeks at MfD. An immediate response is demanded. By submitting the draft, the author is asserting its move to mainspace, it is no longer in pre-development. In mainspace, A11 exists for things like this. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 09:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
* I believe we need a way to expediently get rid of drafts that can never be article material, but expanding A* criteria to draftspace defeats the purpose. There must be a better way. [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 09:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
** I disagree with your recent propensity to MfD weak worthless harmless drafts. Before submission, it can be very hard to tell what the author was thinking, there can be insufficient information to tell. Once '''''Submitted''''', the author implicitly believes and asserts it is ready, that they would have it in mainspace. Treating it as a mainspace creation is appropriate. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 09:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
*** Right, my reasoning is that "the author is probably gone, and a google search didn't turn up any reliable sources. This draft isn't going anywhere, therefore delete". I can see your point for submission to AfC and whether or not it is ready though. (Somewhat related, I oppose G13 on principle, as I believe it is way too broad and gets too much workable content in its dragnet.) [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 09:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
* See [[Draft:Taylor Evans]]. Submitted. There is no doubt it needs deletion. G11 fits at a stretch, but A7 is the more appropriate. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 09:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
** That one's pretty bad, no doubt. However, I *generally* oppose applying A* criteria at first submission. Three unchanged submissions, however, and I would say you have a point. Though it would be best if other contributors helped fix these submissions, some drafts just aren't going anywhere, and it isn't really our job to fix low-quality submissions. [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - It may be useful to clarify exactly what [[User:SmokeyJoe]] and [[User:Legacypac]] are saying. These two editors have been often disagreeing at MFD, but have come to agreement. Submitted drafts are drafts that have been submitted to AFC for the AFC review process. They aren't anything else. If an author-editor Submits an AFC draft, they are requesting that it be accepted into article space, and so the author-editor is saying that the draft is ready to be judged by the standards of article space. These standards include that the article should have a [[WP:CCS|credible claim of significance]]. We aren't suggesting that a full notability test be applied, but only that people, bands, companies, events, and whatever have a [[WP:CCS|credible claim of significance]] and not have been made up. A submitted draft means a draft that has been Submitted to AFC for review and for which acceptance into article space has been requested. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 10:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - In my opinion, the exceptions for sandboxes for [[WP:G2|G2]] and [[WP:G1|G1]] also should not apply to Submitted drafts. That is, when the author-editor Submits the draft to AFC, they are saying that it is ready for article space, so it isn't a test edit and it isn't [[WP:Patent nonsense|Patent nonsense]]. ~~
*'''Comment''' - Submitted drafts means drafts for which acceptance into article space has been requested, and therefore not crud. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 10:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
*another example: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Greenwich Music School]] page is not G11 promotional but a local music school is simply not notable and this one was started in January 2018. It's a submitted draft which means we asked to put it in mainspace where it would be immediately CSD'd [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 16:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' – I'm somewhat opposed to extending A* CSD to drafts. My impression is that the concern is wasting reviewers' time with repeatedly-submitted unsuitable drafts. I assert that a solution to this problem has to address the user behavior that is causing it, without being too [[WP:BITE]]y. Along the lines of the three-strikes proposals, I suggest that a thrice-declined and throroughly unpromising draft may be summarily userfied, something any reviewer can do, with a warning. What should that warning say? And what should the user be required to do before submitting again? I'd require at a minimum that the user engage in a discussion on the now userspace draft's talk page or at the AfC Help Desk with, preferably, the declining reviewer or, at least, any AfC reviewer, where the deficiencies of the draft that would cause it to be speedied if it were in articlespace are addressed. Submission without this discussion would be blockable tendentious editing, vaguely akin to various DS regimes. '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">— jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#0eff1a">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#196633">(contribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 17:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
* Alternatively, for the benefit of not messing with automated tools, we could create CSD#D1 corresponding to A7, and D2 corresponding to A11, for ''author submitted drafts'' that would meet A7 or A11, with the explicit note that tagging is not mandatory, the reviewer ''may'' tag, or may reject, on their own judgment, potentially distinguishing “fundamentally hopeless” from “currently hopeless looking”. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
*:Perhaps we could use matching numbers - D7 corresponding to A7, and D11 corresponding to A11. Should any more of the A criteria be demonstrably useful for drafts, they can readily be slotted in where appropriate - I can see a potential for parallels of [[WP:CSD#A3]] [No content] and [[WP:CSD#A9]] [No indication of importance (musical recordings)], and we would call these D3 and D9. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
::I like that idea. We sometimes use G2 test on No Content Draft pages but it's not a perfect fit. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' 2 points:
*# There's no real problem with letting pages that are in draft space and not submitted for AFC review (and potential promotion to mainspace) lie there and let G13 capture the stragglers. Concievable if the page is being edited it's being improved. If an editor stumbles across a draft that isn't in AFC and isn't being updated, the question of the draft
*# I suggest not circumscribing or perscribing a "If X, Do Y" CSD rule regarding drafts. I would prefer a "AFC submission declined multiple times with no improvement" CSD rule so items that are slam dunks in MFD can short circuit the process. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 11:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
*I would like to see A11 being applied to submitted (or any, for that matter) drafts - A11 is designed to deal with pages that have [[WP:NFT|no redeeming value whatsoever]]. A7 is more tricky -- there are the hopeless A7s and those that may be on notable subjects but notability was not established. I would support a CSD for drafts being resubmitted multiple (2-3) times without improvement. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
**I also support the application of A3 to submitted, blank drafts. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 19:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
* [[Draft:Havin' a snat]]. If you don’t believe in speedy deletion A11 style in draft space, what process do you think should deal with this draft? —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
**A11 for draftspace is actually a good idea. [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 04:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
** I support allowing A11 for drafts submitted to AfC, and am neutral on allowing it for all drafts. I'm still not comfortable with A7/A9 deletions on articles submitted to AfC only once, though. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 00:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
*** Have to agree with you on A7/A9 (which should be merged anyway). [[User:Jjjjjjdddddd|Jjjjjjdddddd]] ([[User talk:Jjjjjjdddddd|talk]]) 03:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
* [[Draft:Taylor Evans]]? Should be speediable, not put through three rounds before deleting. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
[[User:Owenblist/sandbox]] clear A7 not promotional not vandalism but not worth taking to MfD or even keeping in AfC categories. Should be able to tag for deletion and done. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 00:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
:: User sandboxes, the user’s main sandbox, is a special page users are pointed to for testing. They should be blanked, not deleted, so the user can find their testing. AfC scripts should auto-detect their placement on a page titled “sandbox” and respond differently. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
:::Yes in this case I'm comfortable blanking the sandbox but the example is exactly on point for the type of content we shoudk be aboe to speedy. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 01:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Was pinged by Joe - A* should apply to drafts, Limiting CSDs just means drafts get declined for the umpteenth time or their MFD'd - Whilst MFD is fine IMHO it shouldn't be used for the most obvious (It'd be no different to coming across something very poor in articlespace and then AFDing it even tho it's CSD-able) - If editors want a final chance in saving it then they can contest the speedy and put something like "Will source in x days", So I agree drafts ''should'' be included in the CSD criteria. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 01:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
*{{reply to|SmokeyJoe|Jbhunley}} The problem with extending e.g. [[WP:A7|A7]] to drafts is as follows: Maybe, as an established editor, I believe ''X'' band will gain a [[Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance|credible claim of significance]] within a few months. So I begin a draft about it, with the sourcing currently available, and plan to fill in the gaps if they gain a credible claim of significance. This is a valid drafting practice. If there comes a time when I no longer believe ''X'' band will gain a credible claim of significance, I can personally request that the draft be deleted. <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:MediumSpringGreen;">Godsy</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 01:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
**Not to gloss over '''submitted''': Maybe I believe ''X'' band currently has a credible claim of significance and submit the draft to AfC for a second set of eyes, only to realize they do not. I should be able to retain my draft for the reasons if I believe they will gain one. That aside, what if non-author User:Y decides to sumbit it to AfC for whatever reason, which is currently allowed, while I personally did not believe it was yet ready? It should not be deleted because of that. Too many caveats would be needed. <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:MediumSpringGreen;">Godsy</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 02:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
*** If the newcomer were to have such beliefs and the ability to ask, they can have it [[WP:REFUND]]ed. Note that it is not in the style of newcomer writers on garage bands, their youtube careers, or their high school toilet, to engage in conversation. If they did, that would immediately mark them as an exception. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
** (ec)[[User:Godsy]], why are you not using the word "submitted". The proposal is to extend to ''submitted'' drafts. The reviewer-tagger and the deleting admin are afforded discretion in their decisions, in the rare case of an upcoming topic being prematurely submitted. They should have already included their best sources. Belief in future significance is something common to every YouTuber and garage band and fails [[WP:NOTCRYSTAL]], and even if sources will arise, a A7 deletable page should be [[WP:TNT]]ed for a restart with the acceptable sources. Draft submitters have to carry some responsibility with their decision to submit. Much more often than the current system allows, the appropriate response is immediate deletion. Immediate, an no author notification, except for it being useful to record on their talk page the number of deleted pages they wrote. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
* Does anyone still think this is a bad idea? —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 12:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
**Depends on what "this" is, given there have been various suggestions over the course of this discussion. I would support this on (and only on) the condition that all such deletions be eligible for [[WP:REFUND]]. Also, I imagine some of the people who objected above for various reasons will still object. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
***What he said. Also, yes I do. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b>]] 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
*I for one strongly '''oppose''' the whole concept. The entire point of draft space is to permit editors, especially but by no means solely relatively inexperienced or unskilled editors, to create pages thsat would be speedy deleted in mainspace, and even if not, would be quite unready to be shown to our readers as wikipedia articles, and to allow editors to work on them, solely or collaboratively as the case may be, until they are ready for mainspace. Drafts should only be deleted for a few, fairly blatant reasons: spam, copyvios, attack pages and BLP violations, obvious vandalism. Most of these are already CSDs. If a draft doesn't qualify under one of these, if should be discussed at MfD if someone wants to delete it, and should normally be kept. It was said above that someone who submits a draft for review is saying 'this is ready for mainspace" and thereby invites the application of the mainspace standards. Hardly. Such an editor is more plausibly saying "I think this might possibly be ready for mainspace, tell me what problems it still has". Remember, AfC does not currently have any process by which an editor can ask for feedback on an unsubmitted dr5aft, nor is there currently any limit on the number of times a draft may be submitted.This is a supream violation of [[WP:BITE]] in which we tell new editors "here is a safe space, ask for feedback when you are ready7" and then the response to a request for feedback may be "oops its gone, we didn't tell you about these rules". Not nice, nor would it benefit the project in any way. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 21:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*:Point of interest (speaking purely as an AfC admin) we have an [[WP:AFCHD|AfC Help Desk]] and every template we use points people towards it ''and'' the [[WP:IRCHELP|IRC chat room]], so saying there are not ''any'' processes to ask for help is false. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
== Does CSD G4 still appy if a page has been singificantly modified, since the time a page has the notice pasted on it? ==
I am referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrashekhar_(TV_Series) . Although the page before I tried to fix it up was surely something that was not reliable, and sourced at all. However after I cleaned it up tweaked things up. Also, while I was doing some research on the subject matter I discovered that the page creator did what seemed like a copy paste, and I removed those items. I tried my best in adding a few references. Although I still think it could end up as a candidate for deletion, I am not sure if it still falls under as a candidate for deletion under CSD G4. [[User:Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold|Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold]] ([[User talk:Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold|talk]]) 05:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
:Not having looked at the page yet, as a general matter, I consider G4 to no longer apply once the prevailing reason the original article was deleted no longer applies. If an article was deleted because there were no reliable sources, and that has been solved, I probably wouldn't consider the page a G4 candidate, etc. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 06:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
::[[WP:CSD#G4]] states "This applies to sufficiently identical copies ..." clarified as "It excludes pages that are ''not'' substantially identical to the deleted version". So this means that "a page has been singificantly modified" is not going to be sufficiently/substantially identical, so should not be G4'd - but a fresh [[WP:AFD]] is certainly an option. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
::I have a slightly stricter interpretation than Someguy (AFAICT it was intended for pages that were copied before deletion and immediately reposted, as with the original version of this article), so I'd decline a G4 on it if the tag were placed now. On a quick glance, I'm not convinced of its notability, though. [[User:Ansh666|ansh]][[User talk:Ansh666|<span style="font-size:80%">''666''</span>]] 17:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
== G7 for redirects after moves ==
If a user moves a long-standing article to a completely different title and then tag the redirects from the old title for speedy deletion per G7, then that's a bit disingenuous of them. I wouldn't expect an admin to actually carry out these deletions. But then I came across a series of moves by one user (logs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Charaghata] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Uttar_Kazirhat][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Kalyanpur,_Baruipur] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Sarmaster_Chak] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Sankar_Parulia] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Sagra_(West_Bengal)] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Narayanpur,_South_24_Parganas]) and the old-title redirects have invariably been speedied. Now, the text at [[WP:G7]] is explicit that this criterion doesn't apply to such pages, but is there something in these cases that I'm missing. Pinging the deleting admins: {{u|RHaworth}}, {{u|331dot}}, {{u|Fastily}}. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 07:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*These looks like ''content hijacking(s)'' at a first glance...[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 07:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*I'm a native resident of the state and no renaming etc. happened.It's probably good faith hijacking of current articles to generate new articles.But, I'm equally ''amazed'' as to the mop-men managed to speedily delete the redirects?! I'll be indulging in a cleanup soon, using my PM flag.[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 07:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
**'''All''' {{done}}--Articles restored to their initial state.I'll probably create the new hijacked-articles (which is now a version in the history of the longstanding articles), in accordance with [[WP:CWW]].Best,[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 08:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*I apologize. I didn't dig deeply enough in my case. Still getting used to this. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 07:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
* <s>G7 of the redirect you just created as a consequence of doing a non page_mover move seems a perfectly valid thing under the rules. Someone doing such a thing had better be sure the page move was a good idea, and fix up any incoming links. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)</s>
::Not really. There needs to be something wrong with the redirect for it to be deleted, and then that'll be under other criteria (R2, G6 etc). Normally {{t|R from move}} redirects should be and are kept at RFD. Page movers shouldn't and don't arbitrarily suppress redirect unless specifically needed.[[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]])
:::Disagree as well. R3 ''explicitly'' exempts such redirects from speedy deletion because "{{xt|a history of improper deletions of these redirects}}" (Note #4) and G7 explicitly says {{xt|For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move}}. {{re|SmokeyJoe}} Please elaborate why you believe such G7 deletions are "perfectly valid thing under the rules" considering those parts of the rules I just cited. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b>]] 08:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
::::[[User:SoWhy]], it seems I missed [[User:Rossami]]'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACriteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=227710091 insertion] of the parenthetical clause in the middle of G7. I was familiar with the first and last sentence only. My comment above struck. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
::Just a quick note that redirects [[Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap|don't take much resource]], so if there's nothing wrong and someone might search for an alternate title, they should probably stay in place :). -- [[User:Luk|<span style="color:#002BB8;">Luk</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Luk|<span style="color:#0099FF;">talk</span>]]</sup> 08:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*What seems to be happening is that the user moves an article, then blanks the redirect and leaves it at that. The G7 tagging appears to have been done by new page patrollers. Taking a look at the three most recently blanked redirects, each was tagged for speedy deletion by a different patroller, one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Sonakhali%2C_South_24_Parganas&type=delete] for G7, and two [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Bishnupur&diff=840649904&oldid=840646254] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&page=Netra%2C_Canning&type=delete] – bizarrely – for A1. Even more bizarrely, two of these just got deleted (incidentally, by one of the admins I've pinged at the start of the post). – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 09:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*:That last part does not really surprise me. Unfortunately. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b>]] 10:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*:In that case, can someone with the goggles peek into and discover the ''patroller'' who did tag the leftover redirects with some or the other CSD tag?[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 10:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*::This information is recoverable from the template messages on the user's talk page. I've alerted one of the two A1 taggers, and left a note on the talk page of the editor who seems to be responsible for the G7 tags. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 10:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*:*[[Charaghata]], [[Kalyanpur, Baruipur]]: tagged G7 by [[User:Xx236]]
*:*[[Uttar Kazirhat]]: tagged A1 by [[User:SamHolt6]]
*:*[[Sarmaster Chak]], [[Sankar Parulia]], [[Sagra (West Bengal)]]: tagged G7 by [[User:Mark the train]]
*:*[[Narayanpur, South 24 Parganas]]: tagged G7 by [[User:Cahk]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 10:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
:This is exactly why we have the text we have in G7. Even something seemingly simple like G7 is ripe for abuse, and taggers and sysops alike need to check more than "Is the first person listed the one who blanked?" Checking page histories of all pages is key. ~ <span style="color:#F09">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 13:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
::An admin who actually checks the page meets the speedy criteria... that would be sight to see! [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
:::You can see that for free at [[User:SoWhy]] :) [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 13:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
::::Thanks but I'm hardly the only one. Most admins know how speedy criteria actually work. Just monitor related discussions and you will notice that problematic deletions are oftentimes performed by the same admins, e.g. {{u|RHaworth}} who is responsible for those deletions Uanfala mentions above (at 09:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)) ''after'' being pinged to this discussion that raised the very same problem less than two hours before (at 07:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)). Regards [[User:SoWhy|<b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b>]] 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::Yeah I do know that about the same admins, but I'd say part of the problem is that those same admins do quite a proportion of the CSD deletions (which they can do as they don't pay much attention to them) [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 14:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
::::::Well, as I say frequently in other venues, if you're finding an editor is doing something consistently that they shouldn't, find adequate diffs and open a discussion on the relevant noticeboard. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 5]] has several entries for modules that are no longer used in the templates for which they were created. The situation seems rather clear-cut — a module is useless without a template, so either they'll be deleted as useless, or they'll get put back into the templates because someone shouldn't have removed them in the first place. Why not have a speedy criterion for them? It could be either standalone or made part of something else.
''Modules with zero transclusions may be deleted after being tagged for seven days''.
Basing this off the image-copyright and T3 criteria, since obviously we shouldn't delete orphaned modules instantly just because they're orphaned; the point is getting rid of stuff that nobody needs, not something that was momentarily removed by accident or vandalism. This is vaguely related to G8 for categories ("populated by a retargeted or deleted template"), since both here and with G8 categories, the template is modified so as to make no more use of the other page. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 16:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
:G8 has no such restriction, it's literally for all "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page". The stuff in the text is only examples and exceptions, not a finite list. Personally, I'd probably summarize those modules under G6 if it's clear that no other use is likely. If it's less clear, TFD won't really collapse from a few extra modules being discussed. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b>]] 17:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
::Sounds more like you want a Module PROD (which given that I can't even get a Template PROD going, good luck!), but I agree with SoWhy in that TFD is not currently overloaded with nominations, so there's not much point in carving out a specific category just for them. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
*If the module is dependent on a deleted template, then G8 would work. If you simply want a process for the uncontroversial deletion of modules after seven days, that would be an extension of PROD and should be suggested at [[WT:PROD]]. --[[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> 19:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
:*Can you explain where you developed the idea that this is a PROD, given the fact that I copy/pasted the rationale from criterion T3? If you go and remove a T3 speedy tag or a dated file speedy tag without resolving the issue, the tag may be restored without resetting the clock; this is no different. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 11:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
*In principle, the same idea that is behind T3 should be able to apply to modules as well. But there are practical considerations that make this less desirable. First, there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of templates, and there is a clear need for efficient means (like CSD) of keeping it all tidy. The number of modules is probably two orders of magnitude smaller, and the deletions that have so far been necessary are far from the scale that would normally necessitate the use of a new speedy deletion criterion. A second – and more important – consideration has to do with they way the two namespaces are used. Templates are one average simpler than modules, they are ubiquitous and well known and so editors passing by are more likely to know what a given template is for it's a more straightforward task to determine if it is unlikely to be used. Modules, on the other hand, are still more esoteric, fewer people are familiar with them, and the tasks that modules are normally created for are more complex and usually involve larger timeframes (which often involve larger intervals between the sketch creation of a module and its deployment). I don't think this is the sort of context in which straightforward, uncontroversial deletions are going to be likely. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 12:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
*The only reason there are so many is because Pppery is going through the module space and deleting things that aren't used. Once that is done I expect the number of modules at TfD to be very low not justifying extending a CSD. Also T3 is {{tq|Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days.}} so you'd likely want to extend "0 transclusions" to that first. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
*: And deleting things that aren't used <ins> or could be implemented in Wikitext </ins> [[User:Pppery|{{3x|p}}ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 15:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
== Proposal at Village Pump ==
I have made a proposal concerning g13 at the Village Pump. Please come and participate. [[User:Egaoblai|Egaoblai]] ([[User talk:Egaoblai|talk]]) 19:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
: [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Increase G13 Speedy deletions to a one year grace period]] — [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89]] <small>([[User talk:JJMC89|T]]'''·'''[[Special:Contributions/JJMC89|C]])</small> 19:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
== Request for comment: Promising drafts ==
{{Rfc|policy|rfcid=6CD2C9F}}
A change made based on a formally closed discussion that stood for a month was reverted today. The [[Special:Diff/840579937|change]] was made based on [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts]]. The supplementary [[Template:Promising draft]] was [[SPecial:Diff/843844917|updated]] to reflect the editing policy on which it is based today, which is what sparked this controversy. Pinging the participants of the discussion mentioned above: {{ping group||Calliopejen1|VQuakr|Hasteur|Jclemens|SmokeyJoe|Yeryry|Jjjjjjdddddd|Ivanvector|Hawkeye7|Winged Blades of Godric|Tazerdadog}}. Pinging recent editors of {{tl|promising draft}}: {{ping group||Uanfala|Primefac}}. I will also post a notice of this discussion at [[Template talk:Promising draft]]. If we do not solve this now it will likely only postpone the disagreement to six or so months down the road as well as breed hostility.
Should [[WP:G13|G13]] be restored to stating: "Redirects {{green|and pages tagged with {{tl|promising draft}}}} are excluded from G13 deletion."? <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 02:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
:<small>Converted to a [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|request for comment]] by [[User:Fastily|Fastily]] at 03:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC). <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 05:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support''' - Contributors should not be allowed to revert changes based on consensus determined by a formally closed discussion because they disagree with it; the proper way to dispute such a close is through [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE|close review]]. That aside, if the {{tl|promising draft}} template does not protect a draft from speedy deletion per G13, then it is pointless (i.e. merely symbolic). <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 13:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*20 days < 1 month. That RfC was poorly attended and just after G13 was implemented; many of the 7 !votes noted that they wanted G13 abolished. Neither the RfC query nor the closer specifically mentioned any changes to the wording of policy, and it seems poor form to reinterpret it as such several months after the closure. In the absence of clear consensus to the contrary I '''oppose''' the proposed blanket prohibition as unnecessary [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]] affecting a tiny percentage of otherwise G13-elgible drafts. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 03:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*:Speaking as the closer of that discussion, my intention was that a properly applied promising draft template should render a page permanently ineligible for G13. I fully endorse the addition of the line to the policy as necessary, and consistent with my close. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 05:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If someone thinks a draft is promising, there should be a discussion. This is akin to [[WP:PROD]] for live articles. If a user is abusively applying the promising draft tag, that is a behavior issue that can be dealt with accordingly. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 04:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as already clear from the last RfC. If someone has explicitly tagged a draft with {{tl|promising draft}}, then deleting it just because it hasn't been edited in six months is definitely not uncontroversial and so is squarely outside the purview of speedy deletion. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 06:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*:G13 is defined to be untcontraversial. Either it has or has not been edited in 6 months and therefore abandoned. Putting a sticky "prevent CSD:G13" is a huge policy grab and not a single one of these objectors ever comes back to do something with the draft. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 19:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*::As the discussion below indicates, deletion under G13 is anything but uncontroversial where another editor has indicated that the particular draft is promising. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 23:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – The promising draft tag should not prevent G13; it should just be one of the ways an editor can postpone G13 for another 6 months. An actual ==contested deletion== argument can be pre-positioned on the draft's talk page and that is the sort of minimal effort we should expect to signify opposition to deletion and some characterization of the editor's willingness and expectation to carry through. I think it's a great idea for drafts that have been sitting idle to come up periodically for inspection - several people are now on the G13 notification list, so it should not just be a matter of one admin making the delete decision all on their lonesome. It's hard to argue that a draft nobody can be concerned enough to work on should be kept around. '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">— jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#0eff1a">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#196633">(contribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 07:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
**"Contested deletion" arguments on the talk page are what we require of people who want to challenge the speedy deletion ''of pages created by themselves''. Creators of drafts are already excluded from using {{tl|promising draft}} on their own drafts. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 07:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Support''' (yes). G13'd drafts can be [[WP:REFUND|refunded]] on request anyway. Objecting to deletion in advance just saves us a few clicks. If someone really thinks a draft is promising they should move it to mainspace, though. It hardly takes more effort than slapping a tag on it. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
**{{u|Joe Roe}}, see my comments below. I’m in agreement with you re: mainspace, but I’m afraid that this proposal will continue what I see as the negative idea that we should keep stuff in draft space until it is perfect. If an abandoned draft is promising and hasn’t been touched for a year (which will likely be the case for anything with this tag) it should be promoted. If it’s not actually promising, why are we keeping it? Either way, this doesn’t make sense. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 10:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
***{{ping|TonyBallioni}} Yes I absolutely agree with you there. My support isn't so much for ''using'' the tag, but for recognising that if we didn't have it, someone could just as easily put a note saying "if you delete this I will ask for it to be undeleted" on the top of the draft with the same effect. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, maybe we should add some guidelines to [[Template:Promising draft]] discouraging people from overusing it. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 11:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
****{{replyto|Joe Roe}}I would say it is a one-time reprieve and that it should be removed by the reviewing admin. A user can always ''restore'' it (which would, in effect, buy the draft another year of violating NOTWEBHOST), but I don't support keeping something around forever that has never been edited just because someone tags it. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 13:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the justification for having G13 is that we don't want to have pages with no prospect of becoming articles sitting around here indefinitely. If a third party thinks a draft is promising then that is much less likely to apply. This doesn't mean such drafts can't be deleted, just that they aren't the obvious cases speedy deletion is meant to deal with. They can still be deleted at MfD. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 09:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Seems like the whole point? Someone can always remove it if they disagree, not like it's binding from ARBCOM... ~ <span style="color:#F09">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 10:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' putting the tag on delays it for 6 months. No need to keep these indefinitely. Mainspace then or delete them. We’re here to build an encyclopedia, not a collection of notes. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 10:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*<s>Oppose</s> (perennial) in favour of deprecating G13. On the merits I agree with Joe Roe: if a draft is "promising", promote it. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 10:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
**{{reply to|Ivanvector}} Unfortunately, I do not think deprecation is likely. That aside, I know you perennially oppose changes to G13, however, I would argue that supporting this is merely maintaining the status quo. Contributors who did not like the consensus established [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts|here]] (which you supported) have resisted the implementation of it. <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 13:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
**:On reflection I prefer promotion to tagging with a template which effectively says "this could be promoted but the tagger couldn't be bothered". I suppose we can think about it this way: speedy deletion is for universally uncontroversial deletions, and if a page is tagged with a "do not delete this" template then it can be presumed that deletion is controversial. Therefore CSD is out, but MFD remains available. To that end, I see no reason to oppose the change - it's not a "drafts can never be deleted" change, it's just a review marker really. Also, I'm aware deprecation is unlikely, but so are a lot of good things that I'm going to continue vocally supporting anyway. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per my reply earlier in the discussion. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 11:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. This is just an open invitation to game the system. If people think a draft is promising they could just improve it. G13 is ''no edits''. Literally all they need to do to prevent G13, is improve the article. Including this would permit people who dispute the existence of G13 to completely neuter it just by bulk tagging, and there is no conceivable benefit to offset that: if you think it's promising, improve it and promote it. Draft space is not an indefinite holding ground for articles that are not up to standard. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
:*There are plenty of articles where I can recognise notability, but lack expertise to improve sourcing (eg language skills, specialist literature access). If people bulk tag clearly unpromising drafts then that can be dealt with as a behavioural issue. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 15:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as second option to deprecating G13, per my perennial opposition to it and my comments beside my struck vote a few lines above. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 13:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Some way of moving draftspace towards the communal development space I thought it was meant to be would be positive. When I process batches of G13s there are usually 5–10% that appear potentially salvageable, but not suitable for mainspace as is; however, I rarely have time or expertise to work on them. Next stop, indexing the promising drafts so that other editors can find them... [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Seems sensible. Also don't see a good reason why the previous discussion shouldn't stand. — <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> \\ 22:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Again we have the same actors touting the same shaky arguments. This template is merely a request to not delete it via G13. It is not policy. A policy would have stemmed from a Village Pump discussion. I note that every single time we have this debate people claim that they will work on the drafts if they template is respected. The template is '''willfully''' being abused as a permanant immunization against G13. Not a single editor who places the template actually does anything about fixing it. The template appears to not summon any users to fix the page. If the users are going to force these pages to be put through the burecracy of a MFD, I will be pinging every last one of them to come defend the page at MFD to make them put their money where their mouth is. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 01:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:* I have barely made the first attempt to publicise the category, at WT:AfC. The point of the template is “I think this draft is not the normal cruft and should not be auto-deleted, but I personally don’t intend to work on it”. This fits the principal of no time limits, and does not clash with the original motivation for G13. Pinging the tagger when mfding is a very good idea, I even think it should be mandatory. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Tagging something as a 'promising draft' does not a draft can ever properly be made an article ''only that it looks like it might'' i.e. it is promising. After a minimum of a ''year'' with no edits ''and'' no one willing to 'bump' it again it is reasonable to assume the draft did not live up to its initial promise. {{pb}} Should draft space ever be indexed or otherwise made more user friendly having thousands upon thousands of these un-deletable yet untouched drafts hanging about will make it all but impossible to winnow useful material from all of the crap. Making a class of articles automatically immune from G13 will result in the same clutter as not having G13 at all, just with a slower fill rate. [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:135%;color:#886600">Jbh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup> Talk</sup></span>]] 01:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:*Not undeletable, just not speediable. As others have said it would be equivalent to a declined prod. The current category (which I only realised existed today) has only 109 entries, so it's hardly a flood. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 02:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:::It only has 109 entries because I've been sorting through them and either de-templatizing them (because they are patently wrong), submitting them for MFD, asking the author if they want to do something about the page, or submitting them for an impartial review to determine if they're ready for mainspace. The template and category are serving a purpose, just not the one you expect. Also I '''seriously''' question your competence if you don't know and understand what a first level template does before using it. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 02:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
::::I've never placed it, just come across it patrolling G13s. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 02:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this has been discussed before and this template should NOT create a class of permanent untouchable drafts. The main users of template have a history of driveby tagging without either accurately determining how useful the page is or doing any work on it. I've seen the tag used on pages the tagger should have immeditely mainspaced themselves, on pages that are already in mainspace (so no need for the draft) and on absolute crap with no promise that should be deleted. There is no consistency at all. It's fine as a flag to suggest a second look and a device to postpone deletion by six months but awful as rule that must be followed because one user with no special expertise or permissions thinks the page promising. Like [[User:Hasteur]] I patrol pages with the template to resolve the reason for the tag and either et the page into mainspace or deleted. You can help empty the list of pages with the template too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Promising_draft&namespace=118&hidelinks=1&limit=500] [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 04:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
**If you disagree what's to stop you from removing the tag? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Amorymeltzer|Amorymeltzer]] ([[User talk:Amorymeltzer#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|contribs]]) </small> 13:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''', with the rather obvious caveat that tags added by the draft creator should be ignored for this purpose. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
* Noting here that I've protected the page as that sentence was leading to edit warring. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 15:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the existence of the template, and the policy that if someone objects in advance it should not be subject to deletion based merely on a date. It can still be deleted if there is a proper reason to do so (although there are not many valid reasons to delelte a promising draft). I missed the previous discussion, but would have been in favor of the creation of this template, and of it serving to exempt a draft from G13. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|<sub>DESiegel Contribs</sub>]] 17:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''No G13 protection:''' We can trust the deleting admins to read any promising draft tags and hold off on deletion if the draft truly is promising. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
**Would you trust the deleting admin to do the same with respect to [[WP:PROD|prodded]] articles, and hence prevent anyone else from de-prodding them? But even that rests on the assumption that the admin will actually look at the draft before they delete it. I don't know how things stand at the moment, but when I was dabbling in drafts a few months ago, almost all G13 tagging was done by a bot, and the majority of the subsequent deletions were performed by admins who did not seem to ever look at what they were deleting. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 18:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*** Are you suggesting that we have admins going around deleting anything with a tag? Declining CSD tags happens all the time. We allow people to be administrators in part because of their knowledge of policy and apparent common sense. If this weren't the case, we might as well create a CSD bot to go around deleting any article with a tag. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
**Here are a few examples of drafts admins deleted despite multiple prior G13 postponements (the old equivalent of promising draft): [[Draft:Nomoli statues]], [[Draft:Priming effect]], [[Draft:William Healy]]. I'm sure I could find more examples (I found these in about 10 minutes of looking), but all of these are reasonable first drafts of seemingly notable subjects. And though deletion was repeatedly delayed by user(s) who thought they were worthwhile, eventually a 6-month period rolled around when someone forgot to postpone... And the drafts were deleted. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 08:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Speedy deletion is per definition for uncontroversial deletions. If someone places this tag, the deletion is no longer uncontroversial and thus outside of the scope of speedy deletion. People actually using this tag to try and game the system can and should be dealt with like all such attempts. But the possibility of abuse (that always exists) does not mean that good faith taggings should be ignored. 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>]][[User:SWM|<span style="color: #660; font-variant:small-caps">Mobile</span>]]''' 17:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' because we should be respectful of well-intentioned editing in draft space. However, against that there is the problem that if a {{tl|promising draft}} goes to MFD, such as [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:History of Thailand since 2001]], it may lead to an embarrassment that is neatly avoided with speedy deletion. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 17:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*Can the proponents of this exemption point me at any articles at all that, after being tagged promising but before a move to mainspace, were improved by someone who hadn't already been working on it? —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
**I'm not sure, but if the answer is none, that would be an argument for more aggressive moves to mainspace (where articles get improved), rather than an argument in favor of deletion of drafts. (Except perhaps for medical articles, BLPs, other cases where underdeveloped articles could do real harm.) [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 21:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
***This is part of my concern - there's no legitimate method to challenge a promising-draft tag. The tag is aggressively purported by its users to be unremovable; there's [[Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring|strong consensus against moving a draft into mainspace when you think it should be deleted instead]]; and MFD refuses to consider deletion on notability grounds. If we're going to enshrine this kind of catch-22 into policy - and [[WP:CSD]] is the single most prescriptive, least descriptive policy on Wikipedia - there really needs to be some sort of demonstrated, tangible benefit to it. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 22:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
****I agree there needs to be a method to challenge it. Maybe MfD policies need to be changed (or else these drafts go through AfD, which might actually be the most appropriate outcome). [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
****I'm not well acquainted with [[WP:MFD]], but I see that of the 14 currently open discussions there, 10 are about drafts (incidentally, many of them are in response to the placement {{tl|promising draft}}). A quick glance shows that the deletion rationales have mainly to do with sourcing and notability. Is [[WP:NMFD]] ignored in practice? If yes, is this a bad thing? If we care about due process, I think we'd all prefer to see the notability of drafts evaluated at any discussion venue (even one not "authorised" to deal with notability) rather than have it handled by the automatic machinery of G13. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 23:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*****My anecdotal and very intermittent experience with MFD is that lack of notability is an aggravating factor, but some other, non-notability-based reason for deletion is put forward too. Or at least, that's always been the case with pages that end up on my watchlist for whatever reason and then find their way to MFD. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' This is a template that is added without review as the opinion of one editor. This should not be used as a method to create untouchable drafts. The only point I see for using this tag is to express your own opinion to whoever is looking at it to reconsider before G13'ing. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 23:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The whole mess seems to be [[WP:NOTBURO|process just for its own sake]]. If a passing editor sees a draft they ''truly'' think is "promising", they can just, you know, ''edit it themselves'' (radical notion, I know). The only function this has is to allow an editor to say: "I like the idea of some-one else working on this article but I can't be bothered myself." That's not merely useless but worse than useless to building the project. The entire idea should be scrapped and any nitpicking about who can and can't apply templates or remove them or what have you is just navel-gazing. Nuke the template from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 23:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - If a draft isn't promising, and someone tags it that way, then giving it 6 months to be brought up to main-space standards is ample time. Even if it ''is'' promising, 6 months is still ample time, and if it's deleted as G13, so be it -- it can always be restored uncontroversially. I really don't see the point of this tag, other than for someone to express an opinion about a draft. Furthermore, a "promising draft" tag should be as easily removable as a prod tag or a speedy deletion tag. It's just someone's opinion. There should not exist a tag for permanent protection from G13. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 23:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
*:Removing a promising draft tag is not the same is removing a prod tag. Removing a prod tag forces a deletion discussion; removing a promising draft tag circumvents a requested deletion discussion. It therefore makes sense that one tag is "sticky" and the other is not. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 23:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Support''' I'm going to try to [[cut the baby in half]] and support a compromise. I support the language that drafts with the {{tl|promising draft}} language should not be deleted G13. I don't support that only the editor that placed that tag can remove it; no maintenance tag on the project should work that way. Some drafts with initial promise will never become articles. There should be discussion of the removal (if the removal is disputed) and then a fresh 6-month delay for G13 after the tag is removed. The only other "reasonable" alternative I see is to modify the tag to say that a specific user wants the draft to be moved to their userspace in lieu of a G13 deletion. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 00:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*:At very least, removal should require (1) a valid reason to the posted to the draft (and not just "unreferenced", because if the topic is notable, then references will exist); and (2) notification at the template placer's talk page so that they can contest. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 06:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::: I presume you would also demand the same of anyone adding the tag, since anything else would be arbitrary and inconsistent. I certainly would be much happier if addition had to be justified, just like every other tag. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:::: I too would be much happier if the addition had to be justified. I think the following two statements should be required: (1) why the topic is suitable for inclusion; and (2) why the page cannot be moved to mainspace in its current state. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::::: Indeed, that's fair, and should help other editors to move the draft forwards. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 14:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' And frankly this template should be removed as an obvious attempt to game/get around G13. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 09:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
** I think that is an absurd position to take, it is like you see preserving a draft as akin to block evasion. Wikipedians have always been able to preserve things, including old drafts. The question is method. Can they apply this template and leave it in draftspace, or will they have to userfy it, or move it into a WikiProject? Maybe [[WP:WikiProject Promising Drafts]] is a good idea. Moving promising drafts there will avoid issues with HasteurBot. It will move them out of scope of G13, will you call that WP:Gaming? —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 10:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
***I like the idea of WikiProject Promising Drafts! [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 14:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
****There is already [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts]], which could be reinvigorated. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 20:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
***** NO! Very different. One is for the hopeless time wasting, the other is filtered for the worth looking at. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 20:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As other editors have said above, this template is basically a way of saying "I don't want to work on this but somebody else ought to." It inherently passes the buck. As a result, it should be only a temporary reprieve - if no one is willing to improve and promote to mainspace after another 6 months after the template is applied, is it really all that promising? ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 13:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
**{{reply to|Premeditated Chaos}} There are many ways the tag can be used, some more appropriate than others. Take [[005 (video game)]] for example; I tagged it as a promising draft then took measures to improve it then eventually promoted it to the mainspace. That aside, and more to the point, active and deceased users can retain userspace drafts forever. The main difference between draftspace and userspace is that draftspace makes the draft more likely to receive collaboration; why should we discourage drafts from residing in a more open place? <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 15:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
***Honestly, I respect your willingness to work on someone else's abandoned content, but you didn't need the Promising Draft template for that. Your continuing edits would have been enough to spare the page from G13, which only proves my point. Slapping the template on it and walking away without improving it is an attempt to pass the buck. Actually working on a so-called "promising draft" resets the G13 counter on its own and is a much better way to make sure the content gets preserved and promoted to mainspace eventually, if it is good. ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 23:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Otherwise, might as well have [[Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Draft|the editnotice]] say "{{xt|use {{tl|promising draft}} if you want this draft to stay forever}}". <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:2Wm|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 19:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. If a draft is "promising", then it should be either a) promoted, or b) userified. The draft namespace was never intended as a storage space to indefinitely store miscellaneous writings. -[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';color:Indigo;font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-size:120%;">F</span><span style="font-size:90%;">ASTILY</span></span>]] 20:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - if an editor feels that a stale draft is promising enough to postpone its deletion, they should either work on it and promote it to mainspace, or userfy it to work on later if they really want to. The process as it stands with the language above as part of G13 would IMO lead to a lot of [[WP:DRIVEBY|drive-by tagging]] and a massive clean-up backlog. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">ƒirefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] · [[User:Firefly/who|who?]] )</small> 20:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Getting rid of drafts purely for reasons of elapsed time is contrary to [[WP:CHOICE]] and [[WP:DEADLINE]]. The template in question is a reasonable way of mitigating this. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 22:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
===Appearently the Promising Draft template is permanent and can't be removed===
: 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)
According to this user anyone can place "Promising Draft" but no one can remove a poorly placed tag. I believe that is not correct. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Lekhasri_Samantsinghar&oldid=prev&diff=844098401] Combine that with the silly notion written at[[WP:NMFD]] that editors at MfD are too dumb to consider notability and we now have a system where any editor can tag a non-notable Draft as "Promising" and indefinitely and forever prevent deletion. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 16:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:'''[[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)
:I find the above comment to be "promising"... :) --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
: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)
:: Technically there are two authorized ways to remove it. The first is deleting the article at [[WP:MFD]]. The second is to improve the article and move it to mainspace. Whether there needs to be a third way to remove "indiscriminate additions" of the tag is unclear. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 17:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
: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)
::: So basically the entire idea is to eliminate G13 and allow any editor who so chooses to irrevocably prevent stale drafts from being deleted other than through MfD. IO kind of thought as much. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::: The motivation of G13 was to do something with the tens of thousands of unsorted mostly worthless cruft and spam drafts. Manually templated (sorted) promising drafts are decidedly not what was intended to be auto-deleted. The motivation for template:Promising draft is to enable positive sorting of the draft pile. Previously, all that was done was disposal via speedy deletion of the worst end of the draft pile. With no positive-end sorting, it was no wonder that no normal content improving editor would play in the draft pile. This template makes it more tempting to play in the draft pile, because you can go straight to the drafts with at least some substance. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
: Are there any templates that an editor can throw up there and no one is allowed to remove? This seems very strange to me. Why would this opinion tag be permanent? [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 22:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
== G8 conflict? ==
The [[Template:Promising draft]] has been thru many versions but it currently reads:
Imagine that I create [[User talk:Nyttend/subpage]]. Assuming that there's no problem with the content I put on the page, it's a perfectly fine page; we wouldn't delete it on G8 merely because [[User:Nyttend/subpage]] doesn't exist. Now, imagine that I create [[User:Nyttend/subpage]] with problematic content, e.g. blatant spam. Someone comes around and deletes it. Should the talk page be deleted (because it's the talk page of a deleted page), or should it remain (because it's a valid subpage in userspace), or is this something we should just leave up to admin judgement?
''"An editor has indicated that this is a promising draft and requests that, should the draft become abandoned, it not be speedily deleted as WP:G13. This draft can still be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD."''
Also, imagine that I create [[User:Nyttend/subpage]] with the content <code>#REDIRECT [[ebwtriypnry0tiw5mr4te5]]</code>, or I create the page with valid content and then replace it with the broken redirect. G8 (redirect to nonexistent page), or keep (established user's subpage), or admin judgement?
Appearently it needs to read:
This just now came to mind as I was deleting spam in userspace; I deleted [[User talk:BassettHousePic/sandbox]] after deleting [[User:BassettHousePic/sandbox]], and I'm not sure this is always right. Here it was (the user's been spamblocked and has no other edits), but that won't always be the case, especially if the userpage is deleted via U1. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 23:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
''"An editor who probably can't be bothered to do anything with this draft themselves demands that it not be speedily deleted as WP:G13. Further the page can not be deleted on the [[WP:NMFD|basis it lacks Notability]] and no one may ever remove this template for any reason except promotion to mainspace."''
:I usually end up deleting the user talk subpages, and mostly consider it a bug that the "G8: Talk page of a deleted page" option doesn't appear in the deletion dropdown and that there isn't a link to the talk page from the post-deletion screen. I guess the distinction is that [[User talk:Nyttend/Archive 42]] is primarily a subpage of [[User talk:Nyttend]]; while [[User talk:Nyttend/spam sandbox]], which typically consists of wikiproject templates from the article creation wizard, would primarily be the talk page of [[User:Nyttend/spam sandbox]].{{pb}}For a U1, or other ambiguous cases where the deletion would be unobjectionable to the page owner, I'd probably leave a note on their talk page or maybe in the deletion log to ask for deletion of the user talk subpage separately if desired. It hasn't come up. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 00:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::I'd perhaps say user talk pages should be an exception (as opposed to only archives of talk pages) to G8. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Hmm, my impression has always been that "User talk pages" in the "not eligible for G8" list only applies to the main user talk page and equivalents, i.e [[User talk:Nyttend]], but not automatically every talk page of a page in the user namespace. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 07:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::That's always been my impression too. Obviously there will be some exceptions (e.g. a theoretical [[user talk:Thryduulf/Subpage/Archive 1]]) that require admin discretion. The easiest (but non-ideal) ways to resolve this are probably using the {{temp|G8-exempt}} template proactively, and having a very low bar to restoration when asked. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
== Procedure for rejected draftified articles and declined/rejected AfC submissions improperly moved or copies to mainspace ==
I support honesty in our templates. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 00:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
* I support honesty in template messages. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
A core wiki principal is to make it easy to edit in something and easy to edit out something. The rules around this template fly in the face of that. Anyone can thoughtlessly add the template and no one can - even after serious consideration - remove it or the page it is on. That is not the Wiki Way. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 13:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
So, this is something I've seen happen in some cases, usually involving inexperienced editors who have just gotten autoconfirmed.
=== Inappropriate removals of promising draft ===
First there is the instance I've dealt with, where an article is draftified (when I've done it, it's usually for lacking references) and the author immediately recreates it by either moving it or, more often, by copy-paste. I haven't seen an exact consensus on what to do in this instance. Some have said db-copypaste might apply, but not all admins will delete in this instance. The other options would be re-draftify, PROD, or AfD.
[[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] has removed the {{tl|promising draft}} from several drafts including from [[Draft:Naphthalene-1,5-dione]]. Per [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts]]: "Editors should not remove this tag unless they placed it themselves or the page creator placed it." Even if Hasteur wants to continue to ignore community consensus, the tag should be allowed to remain if someone restores it after his removals (because that implies others than the tagger think it should be there). That aside: If this discussion affirms the promising draft tag, a discussion can be started about when and how the template should be removed; if not, the matter is moot as the template is pointless. <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 17:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:Please oh great '''font''' of wisdom: How is a procedurally generated page for where there is no prose, no content, no references how is that '''PROMISING'''. If anything '''YOUR''' drive by tagging of the draft and unexplained restorals are disruptive and out of order, so kindly desist. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 17:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Hasteur}} My restorations are supported by community consensus while your removals are based solely on your opinion. <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 17:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:::Drive by templating is never authorized. Procedural generation of directory listing, without any idea of if this compound is notable, without any prose. These are things that Wikipedia has expressed on multiple times that is not desirable or authorized. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 17:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
::::You are simply incorrect ([[WP:DRIVEBY]] is part of a failed proposal; if that is what your referring to, I'm not sure because you did not provide any links). A third removal, eh? Well, I am not willing to [[WP:EDITWAR|edit war]] as you are. It is unfortunate that those willing to do that so often get their way (at least in the short term). <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 17:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::Godsy, there is an old saying; "if you want to convince people that there are too many people being held in prison for minor offenses, don't pick Charles Manson as your example." The draft that you are fighting to keep the tag on is one of the ''least'' promising drafts on Wikipedia. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 22:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::Godsy is correct in that the RFC closed saying that the template could not be removed. However let's say that this is an [[WP:IAR]] removal. The [[Draft:Naphthalene-1,5-dione|page]] has no real sources, and it appears the data came about by running EPISuite software to predict properties. How is such a draft promising? The template applicator has made a mistake, but is the only way to get the template removed to persuade the person who put it there to take it off? I think [[WP:BRD]] should apply. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 23:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|Graeme Bartlett}} I take who tagged the draft into account. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] is active, has been around since 2013, and has accumulated over 20,000 edits. Whatever they saw in the draft, why should Hasteur unilaterally overrule that? If we were talking about an inexperienced editor, I would feel differently. <small>— [[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup> ([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::That was a mistaken tagging and I apologize.But, I'm genuinely at a loss to understand the edit-warring by {{U|Hasteur}}.AFAIS, I've a t/p that is accessible, quite like MFD is......[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 05:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's take this as an example of an inappropriate removal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nils_Forsberg&type=revision&diff=844041162&oldid=826699567] (on [[Nils Forsberg]]). The problem is that there are so-many delete-happy editors and admins that there needs to be a way to force a discussion about drafts that other editors think are worthwhile (even if not yet ready for mainspace). If you put on the promising draft tag, it's liable to be removed. And here is a list of worthwhile drafts that were actually deleted as G13 (there are many, many more). [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_65#Sample_of_some_worthwhile_articles_that_have_been_deleted_under_G13]]. Without safety mechanisms, worthy content ''keeps getting deleted''. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 01:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:I've taken to patrolling G13 when I have the time/mental energy. I have several times had the entire 50-article set deleted by another admin in the time it took me to type a single article title into Google and eyeball the results. I might be wrong but I suspect some admins consider the job to be a bot-like process, where all that needs to be ascertained is whether the draft has indeed lain fallow for the requisite 6 months. There has to be a better way of dealing with this issue. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 02:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::Looking through the deletion log for the past couple days, the typical deletion rate is 3-4 per minute, with rates as high as 8 per minute observed. I find it implausible that admins are doing more than a quick skim of the article, and a check of the history to ensure 6 months unedited when deleting faster than 3/minute. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 03:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:::If a trusted user or the bot did the nom as part of a batch off the G13 list, you know it is G13 eligible. You don't need to drag out a calender. It does not take very long to see 2 or 11 AfC rejections which tells you the page has been reviewed by trusted reviewers and rejected. If not through AFC many are easily assessed as spam or other crap. I know this because I've nominated thousands of G13. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::::{{re|Legacypac}}--Whilst, you mght be the person on this project with the longest CSD log and whilst the actions by {{U|Calliopejen1}} to directly mainspace the draft were sub-optimal, that doesn't excuse your's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nils_Forsberg&diff=844041162&oldid=826699567 out-of-process] de-taggings.And, since you've brought this issue at some other thread, I'm afraid that in case of continued misuse, as much as an user can be banned from accesing the AFCHS script, people can be T-banned from the CSD arena, with equal pleasure.
::::And, '''don't''' remove any validly placed ''promising-draft'' template, unless the close of the previous RFC is overturned.You ought to know where MFD or the t/p of the template-tagger lies......[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 05:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::I agree with Legacypac that extremely fast deletion rates are reasonable. Most drafts are utter garbage. My concern is that drafts that are not the usual garbage are deleted with the same gusto. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 06:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::By the way, when I go through drafts that are up for deletion to apply the {{tl|promising draft}} tag as I think is appropriate, I normally tag about 1-2% of drafts. The rest can be thrown away and no one will miss them. (There may be some notable topics in the remaining 98% but for those we're talking one-sentence or few-sentence articles which lack sources and for which recreation would be trivial.) [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 06:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:: You appear to have missed the point of draft space. It's for drafts being worked up into articles, It's not an indefinite holding ground for things people can't be arsed to make into articles. The obvious answer with teh Forstenberg article was to promote it. I started looking at [[User:Calliopejen1/Postponed AFC]]. There is a fuckton of spam in there. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:::There is some garbage there, but plenty of reasonable starts on notable topics. Just a couple examples I found right now: [[Draft:Nomoli statues]] (coverage in [https://books.google.com/books?id=XaWpDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA921&dq=nomoli%20figurines&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q=nomoli%20figurines&f=false Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines]), [[Draft:Priming effect]] (soil biology article with five journal references), [[Draft:William Healy]] (with [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6389674 this linked biographical journal article], describing him as " a pioneer psychiatrist and criminologist"). [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 08:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::::Healy's clearly notable; I'll try to work that one up. Some of the early declines (that one was submitted in 2012!) seem to have been a bit scattergun. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 15:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
{{collapsetop|hatting some discussion that strayed from the topic... (my fault) [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 09:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)}}
:::Also, if draft space is only for things actively "being worked up into articles" then we should be forbidding bold moves from article space to draft space (those moves would be inconsistent with the purpose of draft space unless the mover plans to work on the article there or has reason to believe someone else plans to do so). [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 08:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:::: I think the rules for draftifying, as documented at [[Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draft_space]], I think are pretty good, clear, and widely agreeable. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::There are a number of articles coming up for G13 deletion that were moved to draft space under different circumstances. (e.g. unsourced and author didn't respond to query about sourcing -- [[Draft:San Antonio Island (Spain)]] and others) Is the correct course to move them back to namespace? [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 08:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::::::ec. Only if the draftification was inappropriate. I am yet to see a seriously inappropriate draftification. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::: I almost decided it was a hoax, before finding an appropriate redirect target. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 09:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
:::::::The Catalan article is better developed, with a good government source. It's not immediately self-evident that the island doesn't qualify for an article. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 09:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}
*{{diff|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation|prev|844237355|Now look what you've done}}. Was that ''really'' what you wanted to happen? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The other instance would be declined or rejected AfC submissions that are moved or copied to mainspace without improvement. My understanding is that declined AfC pages that are resubmitted without improvement are usually summarily declined. If a submission is declined multiple times, that would indicate consensus that the page, in its present state, is unsuitable to be an article, putting it in a similar position to a page that meets G4. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
===Advice for insulating your Draft from all deletion===
{{atop|'''Nope'''.All draft-creator(s) are {{red|forbidden}} from slapping the template, on their ''own'' draft and the template has been accordingly removed.[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">~ ''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 04:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_Shantae_characters&oldid=834415120] just make this your opening edit. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:The promising draft cannot be applied by the article creator. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
: There is little about this template that makes sense to me. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 23:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
::Well it WAS applied during edit #1 and according to the "rules" neither you nor I or anyone else can take it off the page now. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 23:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
:::To quote the close of [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_66#Template_for_promising_drafts|the last RfC]] on the topic (which is I guess what you mean by "the rules"), {{tq|Editors should not remove this tag unless they placed it themselves or the page creator placed it.}} – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 23:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
{{ab}}
:I think straight to AfD is usually the right choice. If it has already been moved to mainspace after a decline, there's strong reason to believe a prod would be contested. And as a contested deletion, it's not really a good candidate for a speedy deletion. That said, AfD is not mandatory. It happens that the draft reviewer can be wrong. Only take to AfD if you still believe it is not notable. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
==Speedy deletion for no reason==
::That's unfortunate since AfD takes up a lot more editor time than CSD. Quick question on that. At which point does contesting a deletion count? Since I've seen plenty of authors go for the "contest deletion" option on G11, U5, and at least one A7 but it's ignored by the deleting admin. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 03:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I got notification from this person [[User talk:Aneeqarani3132]] regarding this article [[Wag (band)]]. I deleted all what she find bothersome. When can I remove this template? I read everything about speedy criteria and none of this matches mine. Thank you. [[User:Qucipuci0|Qucipuci0]] ([[User talk:Qucipuci0|talk]]) 07:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC) [[User talk:Qucipuci0|Qucipuci0]]
:::We are not here to delete as much stuff in as little editor time as we can, but to make proper decisions on whether something is or is not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. G11 and A7 are also possible speedies for some drafts moved to mainspace, but not valid for many of them. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
: That article is appalling, I have to say. A [[WP:LAUNDRY|laundry list]] compiled from multiple issues of a fan magazine. Are there no weightier sources? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
::::I guess I thought that a draft that has been declined or rejected (especially multiple times) might be sufficiently unsuitable for mainspace to be speedily deleted. I had been tentatively floating the idea of whether a new CSD criterion might be established for this instance, though it seems like that sort of criterion wouldn't work at this point. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Rejected is just the opinion of one editor. On occasion I have moved such pages to mainspace, as clearly the rejection was not appropriate. A speedy delete in the situation you say is controversial, so AFD or other existing speedy delete (eg advertising or no claim of importance) is best. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 01:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{ec}} Draftspace and AfC are optional. If someone moves a page from draft to article space that doesn't meet an existing speedy deletion criterion, but you believe should be deleted then PROD and AfD are your only options. AfC rejections represent the opinion of the reviewer(s), not consensus. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Just noting that if a copy/paste has been performed, unless the original editor is the ''only'' content editor a {{t|histmerge}} will be necessary. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 01:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
*Use AFD, there shouldn't be a criteria for deleting such articles as it would discourage people from using AFD in the first place. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 17:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
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]
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. older ≠ wiser20:06, 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, SONIC67820:19, 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]
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]
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]
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:BADGERThe 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]
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]
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]
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 bothere 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]
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]
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]
@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]
And the case for first-letter capitalization can't be made; there's been 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 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. —Cryptic13:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ø (Disambiguation) is a 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. Certes (talk) 21:40, 7 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 - 2¢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. – bradv15:15, 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]
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]
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]
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.
G8 conflict?
Imagine that I create User talk:Nyttend/subpage. Assuming that there's no problem with the content I put on the page, it's a perfectly fine page; we wouldn't delete it on G8 merely because User:Nyttend/subpage doesn't exist. Now, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with problematic content, e.g. blatant spam. Someone comes around and deletes it. Should the talk page be deleted (because it's the talk page of a deleted page), or should it remain (because it's a valid subpage in userspace), or is this something we should just leave up to admin judgement?
Also, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with the content #REDIRECT ebwtriypnry0tiw5mr4te5, or I create the page with valid content and then replace it with the broken redirect. G8 (redirect to nonexistent page), or keep (established user's subpage), or admin judgement?
I usually end up deleting the user talk subpages, and mostly consider it a bug that the "G8: Talk page of a deleted page" option doesn't appear in the deletion dropdown and that there isn't a link to the talk page from the post-deletion screen. I guess the distinction is that User talk:Nyttend/Archive 42 is primarily a subpage of User talk:Nyttend; while User talk:Nyttend/spam sandbox, which typically consists of wikiproject templates from the article creation wizard, would primarily be the talk page of User:Nyttend/spam sandbox.For a U1, or other ambiguous cases where the deletion would be unobjectionable to the page owner, I'd probably leave a note on their talk page or maybe in the deletion log to ask for deletion of the user talk subpage separately if desired. It hasn't come up. —Cryptic00:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my impression has always been that "User talk pages" in the "not eligible for G8" list only applies to the main user talk page and equivalents, i.e User talk:Nyttend, but not automatically every talk page of a page in the user namespace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's always been my impression too. Obviously there will be some exceptions (e.g. a theoretical user talk:Thryduulf/Subpage/Archive 1) that require admin discretion. The easiest (but non-ideal) ways to resolve this are probably using the {{G8-exempt}} template proactively, and having a very low bar to restoration when asked. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure for rejected draftified articles and declined/rejected AfC submissions improperly moved or copies to mainspace
So, this is something I've seen happen in some cases, usually involving inexperienced editors who have just gotten autoconfirmed.
First there is the instance I've dealt with, where an article is draftified (when I've done it, it's usually for lacking references) and the author immediately recreates it by either moving it or, more often, by copy-paste. I haven't seen an exact consensus on what to do in this instance. Some have said db-copypaste might apply, but not all admins will delete in this instance. The other options would be re-draftify, PROD, or AfD.
The other instance would be declined or rejected AfC submissions that are moved or copied to mainspace without improvement. My understanding is that declined AfC pages that are resubmitted without improvement are usually summarily declined. If a submission is declined multiple times, that would indicate consensus that the page, in its present state, is unsuitable to be an article, putting it in a similar position to a page that meets G4. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think straight to AfD is usually the right choice. If it has already been moved to mainspace after a decline, there's strong reason to believe a prod would be contested. And as a contested deletion, it's not really a good candidate for a speedy deletion. That said, AfD is not mandatory. It happens that the draft reviewer can be wrong. Only take to AfD if you still believe it is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate since AfD takes up a lot more editor time than CSD. Quick question on that. At which point does contesting a deletion count? Since I've seen plenty of authors go for the "contest deletion" option on G11, U5, and at least one A7 but it's ignored by the deleting admin. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to delete as much stuff in as little editor time as we can, but to make proper decisions on whether something is or is not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. G11 and A7 are also possible speedies for some drafts moved to mainspace, but not valid for many of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I thought that a draft that has been declined or rejected (especially multiple times) might be sufficiently unsuitable for mainspace to be speedily deleted. I had been tentatively floating the idea of whether a new CSD criterion might be established for this instance, though it seems like that sort of criterion wouldn't work at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected is just the opinion of one editor. On occasion I have moved such pages to mainspace, as clearly the rejection was not appropriate. A speedy delete in the situation you say is controversial, so AFD or other existing speedy delete (eg advertising or no claim of importance) is best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Draftspace and AfC are optional. If someone moves a page from draft to article space that doesn't meet an existing speedy deletion criterion, but you believe should be deleted then PROD and AfD are your only options. AfC rejections represent the opinion of the reviewer(s), not consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]