<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 19:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715454067}}
== Proposal: Expand A11 to the draftspace (A11 -> G15) ==
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)
*'''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)
*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)
*'''Support'''. These shoot basically be deleted on sight. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose alternative capitalization of first letter being included''' – These are not harmful and Wikipedia is not improved with their deletion. It's entirely predictable that someone would miscapitalize a disambiguator. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As the only non-article pages in mainspace, disambiguation pages and redirects are each special and somewhat obscure from a reader viewpoint, and redirects to disambiguation pages are doubly so. The correct versions of these redirects are a technical measure to assist editors and the automated tools they use. The incorrect versions, including capitalised variants, serve no purpose and help no one. Shoot on sight. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 19:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Entirely unhelpful to keep these around. Might as well keep any and every misspelling as entirely predictable that someone at some point will make such an error. Better to make it clear that it is an error than to let an editor think they have created a correct wiki link. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' deleting "(<u>D</u>isambiguation)" redirects if they redirect to a disambiguation page-someone might miscapitalize the D (like in the case of holding the {{key|Shift}} key for too long), and while it may not necessarily be helpful, it's not harmful either. '''Support''' deleting those with misspelled "disambiguations" and those that have "disambiguation" yet don't have appropriate disambiguation pages that exist-those ones are search bar clutter and might annoy or mislead people respectively. '''Neutral (tilting support)''' on deleting the "(DISAMBIGUATION)" ones though-this error (e.g., holding the {{key|Caps Lock}} key) does happen, but not very often. Those ''may'' help some people, but they're mostly an annoyance, so Wikipedia may be safe without the fully capitalized disambiguators. Regards, [[User:Sonic678|<span style="font-family:Racing Sans One; color:#0F45D2">SONIC</span>]][[User talk:Sonic678|<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; font-size:83%; color:#D4AF37">678</span>]] 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tpq|those that have "disambiguation" yet don't have appropriate disambiguation pages that exist}} Redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" (with any capitalisation) that don't point to a disambiguation page and cannot be retargetted to an appropriate disambiguation page are already covered by R4. Those that don't end that way need discussion to determine what, if anything, the best target is. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. These are harmful because linking to them from anywhere except their RfD nomination is ''always'' a mistake per [[WP:INTDAB]]. They should all be red links so its immediately obvious to the editor that tries to add them. In fact, this is precisely why we should delete "(Disambiguation)" redirects since those are the most likely ones to make editors trip up. The very few editors that hold down Shift for too long while searching for disambiguation pages (I'm guessing people don't search for dab pages too often in general so imagine how rare those mistakes are) will be taken care of by search anyway. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 20:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*:By that logic we shoudn't have any redirects pointed to dab pages. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::No, that doesn't follow from my comment. What I said only applies to the redirects included in the CSD proposal. Linking to e.g. [[doing]] instead of <nowiki>[[do (disambiguation)|doing]]</nowiki> is wrong but the redirect should still be kept since it's useful for searching. [[Do (Disambiguation)]] is not useful because it's an implausible search term and anyone who nevertheless searches it today ends up in the correct page yet it looks close enough to the correct version that an unsuspecting editor might think it's fine per [[WP:INTDAB]] even though it's not. Keeping it would provide no benefit to the readers <del>but would cause problems to the editors</del> <ins>and the problem it would cause to the editors outweighs any potential benefits</ins>. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)<ins>;edited: 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)</ins>
*:::I guess I just really disagree that it's an implausible search term to have the alternative capitalization. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 14:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::Well, who types "(disambiguation)" in the first place? Almost all (if not all) our readers would type the name of the thing they are looking for and click the hatnote. I'm guessing (but I admittedly don't know for sure) that a lot of editors do the same. So, when even the correct capitalization is implausible, imagine what the incorrect one is. And again, for the very few people who do type the whole thing instead of clicking on the correct suggestion, and the very few times they get it wrong, search will find the right page anyway. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 14:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Some people do search directly for disambiguation pages, e.g. when they are looking for a list of things called X, or when they know or suspect that the X they are looking for is not the primary topic but don't know what the article is called. As far as I am aware, it is not possible to know how many people "some" is, other than it's greater than zero.
*:::::Regarding the capitalisation, everywhere outside of disambiguators there is a very strong consensus that redirects from plausible alternative capitalisations (such as Title Case) are a Good Thing. I've never seen any remotely convincing evidence for why disamiguators are different. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
* [[File:Wikipedia search box screenshot for use in en.Wikipedia talk-Criteria for speedy deletion-RFC new R5.png|right]] '''Support''' Nothing has changed since the RFCs. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) <ins>; added image 21:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)</ins>
*:As pointed out every time search suggestions (the image) are brought up at RFD, this is only true for a subset of ways people navigate Wikipedia. Users, including but not limited to those following links, entering the URI directly, or using some third-party search methods will not end up at a page that doesn't match the capitalisation of their search directly. What happens then depends on a combination of multiple factors, but some will be one click/tap away from the page they want others will be up to at least three clicks/taps away. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Maybe you find it so frustrating because others don't find your argument convincing? This may be a case of touring the sticks.
*::{{tq|third-party search}} Just for kicks, I tried a few external search engines with the query "London (Disambiguation)". Unsurprisingly, all of them returned [[London (disambiguation)]] as their first hit. If you go through the search API, you go directly there. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 00:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::You not being convinced doesn't mean others weren't, so please don't act like they're silly for saying their peace. Thryduulf's argument in a previous RfD actually made me reconsider my view and realize how silly I was for supporting the deletion of alternative capitalizations of disambiguators. As if editors would never accidentally or mistakenly capitalize one, eh? As if these capitalizations are somehow detrimental and damaging, or unhelpful. I think what's silly is to act like they're saying something ludicrous. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|like they're silly for saying their piece}} Please [[WP:FOC|don't put words in my mouth]]. Thryduulf complained in their edit summary about not getting through to others with their argument. I suggested that they might not have given enough consideration to changing their approach, which hasn't worked. It's one of my more hard-earned lessons from contributing in this place that being Right™ and being agreed to are different things. As Lonestone put it, doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result is not ''[[wikt:zielführend|zielführend]]''. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::There is a difference between not being convinced by an argument and pretending that argument does not exist. It's fine to think that disadvantaging a proportion of readers is OK, what is not fine is claiming that nobody will be disadvantaged. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Again, words are being put in my mouth. {{em|Where}} did I say that "nobody will be disadvantaged"? Maybe you were thinking of somebody else? Maybe I should now complain about not being understood? <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 07:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Saying "nobody will be disadvantaged" is implicit in your posting of the image directly above when it has been explained, multiple times, why arguments relating to search suggestions are incorrect and/or misleading (depending how they're phrased). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::No, that is you reading stuff into my words. All I did was let some air out of your argument. You don't have to like it, but don't misrepresent my words. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::You let no air out of my argument, because my argument has always explicitly acknowledged that search suggestions exist and help some people but because they do not help everybody they are not evidence the redirect is unnecessary. Pointing out that search suggestions exist adds nothing to that at all. Pointing out search suggestions exist in combination with an argument that says such redirects are unnecessary is misleading. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::It is [[WP:SATISFY|not my job to convince you]]. {{tq|It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.}}
*::::::::::That I have not rebutted your every point is because I don't deem it necessary. I've argued to the point where I let the process do the rest. It may not satisfy you, but it does {{em|not}} give you licence to impugn my words as misleading. That is inappropriate. You believe you're right? Fine. Then wait for the close. Or talk to someone else. The only thing you can achieve here is badgering me. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I'm not asking you to convince me, or to agree with me. I'm asking you to acknowledge the existence of arguments that refute yours rather than pretend they don't exist. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Again for the hard of hearing: [[WP:BADGER]] {{tq|The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not [...] mean that others are obligated to {{em|answer}}}} (added emphasis) <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 21:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Depending on the search method of I use, you're 100% correct. The lack of the alternative capitalization has been a hindrance at times. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 03:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' "Disambiguation" redirects per my arguments at the linked RfDs. These are useful redirects and deletion harms the encyclopaedia, speedy deletion would be even more harmful. Almost all implausible misspellings of "disambiguation" can be speedy deleted under G6 and/or R3 already, I've not seen any evidence there are enough that can't to justify speedy deletion. ''Plausible'' misspellings should be kept like any other plausible misspelling redirect. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Thryduulf. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' As far as I know, obvious and unlikely names can already be speedy deleted. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The 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 ==
[[WP:1DAY|Wikipedia is not for things made up one day]]. Any page whom's subject is made up by the author is not notable at all, and as such, it should be deleted as hopeless, like we delete [[WP:G11|adverts]], [[WP:G2|tests]], [[WP:G3|vandalism, hoaxes]], [[WP:G10|attacks]] and [[WP:G1|nonsense]]. Deleting drafts that are made up and have no credible claim of significance would reduce the AfC backlog (especially high at the moment) and discourage further recreation. I propose the new criteria be G15, since there is no D criteria. Thoughts? [[User:CoolSkittle|<span style="background-color: blue; color: orange">CoolSkittle</span>]] ([[User talk:CoolSkittle|talk]]) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
{{atop
:Not a fan. (A) If it only applies to drafts, it should be among the D criteria. (B) Articles about neologisms that would probably be speedied under A11 in article space can be more tolerable in draft space. If G1/G2/G3/G10/G11 don't apply, maybe wait a while. (C) If we start speedily deleting AfC drafts for typical A criteria, draft space kind of loses its point. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 18:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
| status = withdrawn
::Quick note on your first point: Proposals for a new D criteria a few weeks ago were unsuccessful (including moving G13 to D1). Not sure there is consensus for D criteria. [[User:CoolSkittle|<span style="background-color: blue; color: orange">CoolSkittle</span>]] ([[User talk:CoolSkittle|talk]]) 19:56, 1 February 2019 (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 proposal D2 above was clearly a non-starter, and moving something that applies to draft ''and'' user space to D1 wasn't clearly a good idea either. I am not convinced the discussion shows a general consensus against D criteria. Compared to the completely useless P criteria, there could actually be some point in having them. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 20:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
}}
:Do you have any examples of current drafts that would be eligible for this new criterion? Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 18:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::Not a current draft but I can recall [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kingdom of Matthew City]] - ping {{u|TonyBallioni}}. I have to say I can't recall that when I used to review more AfC drafts that there were that many A11 candidates, but then again I mostly reviewed older submissions and A11 submissions would be rejected quickly before they made it that far. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' SoWhy has near zero experiance in Draftspace or MfD so of course has not seen these. I have seen plenty of examples. Most get shoehorned into Hoax or Spam but would be much better classified as "made up one day" I don't believe this change would result in may additional deletions but would much better classify the G11 and G3 applications into an easier to understand criteria. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*:Instead of commenting on my (perceived lack of) experience, could you maybe just present those examples for us to make up our own mind? Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 20:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*::It is not "perceived", it is an easily demonstrable lack of experience. 500 examples will never convince you to support anything that might expand a CSD so, why entertain the question? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|Legacypac}} It is an [[ad hominem fallacy]] and is clearly commenting on contributor rather than content. Knock it off. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*::::Agreed. I've experienced quite a lot of it from the same editor in two recent disputes (one CSD related, on "the portals question", the other MfD-related, on an essay). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Combine with G3''' per that MfD. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 19:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The whole point of draft space is so that users have time to find reliable sources to prove that their article is about something that wasn't made up that day. Is there really that large of an issue that MFD or G13 can't handle? [[User:Iffy|Iffy]]★[[User Talk:Iffy|Chat]] -- 19:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' A11 doesn't apply if you can assert that the subject is significant. That means an A11 candidate is not necessarily "hopeless", because the author could add claims of significance or additional sources. In mainspace that's a problem but draftspace is supposed to be a safe space to allow article improvement without the immediate threat of deletion. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 20:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:*I'm also opposed to combining A11 with G3. They are fundamentally different in that one relates to good faith contributions and one to bad faith contributions. We shouldn't ever label good faith contributions as vandalism. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 18:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Combine with G3'''. I agree with [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]]. A11 is really just a lowering of the standard for G3. A11 and G3 should be combined, and thus would be applicable to drafts. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 20:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Combine with G3''' by wordsmithing G3 a little. I actually came back to the discussion because I had the same idea. A game/term/club/stupid idea someone made up last week is pretty much on par with a fake topic someone made up. An A11 is just a G3 where the writer told us they made the thing up. We even have "Note: This is not intended for hoaxes" bolded in A11 because the concepts are so close. We just need to add a little text about "obviously invented" to G3. I can't imagine why any Draft that fits A11 would be or become acceptable. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:*I presume this supersedes your previous support !vote? [[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Appable|contribs]]) 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:::No, either option is good. I believe inserting junk you [[WP:MADEUP]] in an encyclopedia is vandalism and everyone knows this who does it. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 07:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Combine with G3'''. I have definitely closed multiple MfDs within the past couple years that have been dumb things some kid made up, stats for fan-created seasons of America's First Top Drag Survivor, or flat-out hoaxes, but because they're in draftspace, we have to either MfD it or wait for G13 to kick in. Why? We're not a webhost for inane bullshit, and hosting unverifiable made-up garbage is not the point of draftspace. ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*{{ec}} '''Oppose combining with G3''', currently neutral on expanding A11 to drafts unless someone actually shows that this is a real problem. With all due respect to Tony, G3 and A11 are not similar. G3 implies bad faith editing by the creating user with the sole intent to disrupt Wikipedia by deliberately adding content that purports to be correct but obviously is not. A11 on the other hand applies to things that actually exist but were madeup by the creator or someone they know. To quote the policy as currently written: "{{xt|Unlike a hoax, subject to deletion as vandalism under CSD G3 as a bad faith attempt to deceive, CSD A11 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game or new word.}}". To put it another way: An article that reads "Floppersgust is a game John Doeson and his friend created on a snowy winter evening in 2019" is clearly not a hoax because the subject is real, just not significant. Adding these kinds of articles to G3 (without a real need to make such a change to begin with!) would just make G3 hopelessly confusing because it would then apply to madeup stuff ''and'' real stuff at the same time. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 21:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As Hut and Iffy mentioned, A11 candidates are not hopeless. It's needed in mainspace because general readers actively read mainspace articles. Draftspace is not critical; the only issues with A11-eligible drafts is that they fill AfC and MfD queues. Though I don't doubt that there are some number of drafts that would qualify under expanded A11, I don't see evidence that there are enough that it would significantly reduce AfC/MfD burden. [[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Appable|contribs]]) 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'm somewhat in agreement with SoWhy and Hut, and per usual don't see the dire need for expansion to draftspace, but my stronger opposition is regarding merging with G3. G3 is for pure vandalism. Okay, we've stretched that to encompass blatant hoaxes, which is fair because a hoax is really vandalistic when you get down to it, but incorporating A11 really just takes it too far astray from "pure vandalism." G3 is one of our most clear-cut criteria, and I don't think muddying it up helps at all. A11 works precisely because it's limited to mainspace, so I think keeping things clear (aka as is) is to our benefit. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support ''' expanding CSD#A11 to all namespaces. This includes userspace, which I support weakly but can not articulate a good reason not to. '''Do not merge with G3'''. A bad faith hoax is not the same thing as a kid’s inept exposition of their imaginary friends adventures. Different auto-messages and log records are needed. Possibly add a U5 style restriction, that the author has never made any real contributions. Personally, I’d prefer it if the reviewers would just quietly and simply blank these pages, but I get it that passing them over irks their sensibilities. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose combining with G3''' per SoWhy. I'm flabbergasted by the support for merging A11 with G3. It seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of madeup (as well as the difference between madeup and hoax); madeup is something that is real, but hasn't been noticed by anyone outside of a small group of people. One could call it a most extreme case of non-notability. A hoax, on the other hand, is pure, deliberate disinformation. It matters not whether or not the creator admits it. There's a reason A11 and G3 are separate criteria; madeup does not equal hoax. Madeup cases are usually the result of a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. There's a big difference between that and vandalism. Those that are bad faith are G3 as well as A11. There really is no need to merge two completely different criteria together. That would just muddy the waters and even potentially drive away new contributors (they may think their edits are being seen as vandalism). [[User:Adam9007|Adam9007]] ([[User talk:Adam9007|talk]]) 02:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [[Draft:The Ashmole Wars]] has just been IAR speedied as [[WP:MADEUP]]. Not sure if this occurs often enough to justify expanding A11 to draftspace though. I just thought I'd point this out as it appears to be relevant to this discussion. [[User:Adam9007|Adam9007]] ([[User talk:Adam9007|talk]]) 19:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose combining G3 and A11'''per SoWhy, Adam9007 and others. They are fundamentally very different criteria and lumping tangientially related things together makes everything more opaque to end users and more open to admins and taggers getting it wrong or abusing the criteria to speedy delete things that should not be speedily deleted. Lumping too much into one is what resulted in the problems we have with G6 which we're slowly unpicking. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose expanding A11''' into draftspace per Iffy and Hut8.5, this would be contrary to the purpose of draftspace as a place where articles can be written and developed without needing to immediately satisfy all the rules so as to allow time for sources to be found and added to the article. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
** A11-eligible topics are not plausibly considered draft articles. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
*** Incorrect. A draft of a notable topic may start out without making any credible claims of significance but have one or more added subsequently - e.g. it may contain a claim that does not seem credible at first but is once a source has been added in a subsequent edit, or the drafter may be writing a biography of a person who did not become notable until adulthood chronologically starting with their early life. These are examples of the correct use of draftspace to create articles about notable topics that would be speedily deleted under this proposal. The proposal would therefore harm the encyclopaedia without bringing any benefit - if the draft is not finished G13 will pick it up, if it's egregiously bad then one of the other G criteria will apply, the few remaining examples that really don't belong and need to be deleted sooner than 6 months should be nominated at MfD where the reason for the hurry can be explained. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 04:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
**** That is a pedantic line to argue. All A11 articles might become FA quality with the next edit. Also, it is clear that we are not clear about the drafts needing deletion - these are fleshed out personal stories of blatantly non-notable things, like the child's imaginary adventure, or the school bathroom. The only fail to be G11-eligible die to a lack of promotion, as they are actually worse, lacking any purpose at all. Perhaps we need to say that page contains material that would never be suitable, not just that there is no material that is suitable. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Combine''' they are very closely related, and can best be considered together. There are a good number of drafts each day that would fall into this category, and there is no sense in not removing them asquickly aas posible. --they are likely being used to game WP as much as because of vanity. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Combine''' with G3. New Page Reviewers already have to consign 22 CSD criteria to memory, any merging or reducing their number would help alleviate the thankless task of NPP. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' Since there is no rush to delete drafts (as opposed to articles) for being made up and note that A11 didn't even exist in the article space until 2013, that said I don't object to obvious ones being deleted to reduce the workload on MFD. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 22:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The rationales are different. G3 is bad-faith activity to spread misinformation. A11 is about (often promotionally) writing about something real but obviously non-notable. Much of draft-spaced material isn't "obviously" anything, and much of the point is to provide time to do the work to establishing something's notability. If we were to make drafts speedily deletable simply because they haven't established it for that topic, then we have no use for draftspace and should just eliminate it. (Personally, I think that's an okay idea, since half the point of userspace is also drafting.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
== Should a 4th CSD for unused templates be added? ==
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=206252D}}
Should a new CSD criteria (<s>T4</s><u>T5</u>) be added for unused templates that meet the following criteria:
* '''Template is not used anywhere''', I.E. has zero transclusions excluding templates own documentation of course.
* '''Template is NOT a substitute only template.''' Should go without saying but templates that are substitute only by definition should never have transclusions, doesn't mean the template can been speedily deleted.
* '''Template is older than 6 months.''' No speedily deleting a new template that hasn't been used just yet.
* '''Template is NOT a sometimes unused/temporary template.''' An example of this would be {{tl|help me}} which may have 0 transclusions at any given moment.
Please discuss. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Practice shows that such templates are routinely deleted at TfD without much discussion, CSDing them would save effort. [[User:Pppery|{{3x|p}}ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 18:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*For the same reason it was unanimously rejected ''[[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposal to add T4: Unused|barely a month ago]]''. Please read the "Please read this before proposing new criteria" box at the top of this page and do the due diligence of at least a minimal search before squandering the community's time with a formal rfc. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 19:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
**{{ping|Cryptic}} that was not a formal RFC, this is. Additionally, I added some clarifying criteria in this proposal, such as the note about substitute only templates being exempt. Would be nice to have the proposal discussed on its merits rather than based on a cursory previous discussion. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 19:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The reason this gets suggested repeatedly is because it's a good idea. So much time is wasted taking unused templates to TfD when there is virtually no opposition to their deletion. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - just look at the logs for the past few months, most (or even all?) of the unused templates were deleted without any objection. Regular nomination just clogs the list with pointless discussions full of "per nom" as there is virtually nothing to say. As these templates weren't in use, there is nothing to lose by deleting them. If someone later on wants the template back, they can ask an admin to [[WP:UNDELETE]] it and move it to their sandbox. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' – templates aren't articles, so the CSD criteria for removing unused ones should be low. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 21:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – it's too difficult, because too bureaucratic, to have unused templates deleted, so many editors, including me, have given up. [[:Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates]], for example, is full of unused templates, almost all blanked. The suggested criterion would help to get them deleted instead of leaving them just sitting there. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 21:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' much like we delete unused pages with just the article wizard text. Clear the clutter and focus management on the useful. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 22:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' should this CSD apply to unused Lua modules too? [[User:Pppery|{{3x|p}}ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 22:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' <del>It cannot be T4, because [[WP:CSD#T4|T4 has been used before]] and we do not re-use old codes.</del> <ins>unless it can be demonstrated that each template to be deleted under the proposed criterion has never been used, either directly or as a substitution.</ins> --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
**{{ping|Redrose64}} so you are opposing the entire proposal because it cannot be T4? That is a pretty simple correction... If it was T5 would you then support it? --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 01:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Assuming this accounts for transclusions that have been removed as part of vandalism before the template is deleted, is not just used to bypass [[WP:TfD|TfD]] in some way, and say around 7 days has passed after being nominated before deletion. [[User:Breawycker|Breawycker]] ([[User talk:Breawycker|talk to me!]]) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
**{{ping|Breawycker}} great point. You can't just remove the transclusions and then CSD the template to game the system. If a template has a number of transclusions and you think it should be removed, that is a case for XfD. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 01:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Such activity is a possible behavioural issue rather than a reason to not have a CSD for non-controversal cases. Anyway if someone changes a handful of templates A to template B and the gets rid of template B where is the problem? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The fact that a template is unused is never by itself a reason to delete it, it's only relevant as a criterion by which to select a potentially unneeded template for further inspection at TfD (see also [[User:Uanfala/Arguments to watch out for in TfD discussions|this brief essay]]). An evaluation of use, or the potential for use, of a template requires knowledge of its context, the function that it serves and the existence of related or similar templates. All this calls for judgement that is above and beyond what goes into dealing with the obvious, clear-cut scenarios that the CSD criteria are there for. A template can be "unused" for a wide variety of reasons. Maybe it's a useful template that nobody happens to know about, in which case it needs not to be deleted, but popularised and integrated into the project documentation. Maybe it's a template that is meant to be used only temporarily, for example until certain issues on a given page have been addressed (niche maintenance templates). It may be a currently unused element of a wider system that somebody might soon need (happens sometimes within the lang-xx family of templates). It may be unused because it was removed in error from the one page where it's meant to be used and nobody has noticed yet. It may be unused because the editor who tagged it for deletion has just removed all of its transclusions. It may be unused at the moment, but its existence may be assumed or required by some other piece of machinery (like a module) in a way that doesn't show up in its list of transclusions. A template may be unused, but it could hold the history of a fragment of article text that has at some point been merged into the article, and hence the template is there to preserve attribution. A template may appear as unused because it's meant to be substed; yes, such a template should be exempt from the proposed CSD, but how do you determine if a template's meant to be substed? (It doesn't always say so in the documentation; I remember there have been TfD discussions where several editors had voted to delete such an "unused" template until someone noticed it was a user warning template and so is always substed.) <br/> I don't think any one editor is attuned to all these possibilities, and that's why such things are better decided by discussion involving several participants. However, TfD does indeed occasionally feel like it's getting flooded with similar nominations, so something probably ought to be done about that. If new speedy deletion criteria are going to be part of the solution, then they should be about easy, clearly-defined subsets of templates; there could, for example, be a CSD criterion for unused navboxes that fail [[WP:NAVBOX]]. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 03:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This helps make editing an easier experience by simplifying the set of available templates. The amount of verbiage and time wasted on discussing (but rarely if ever actually using) ''potential'' uses of these templates is vast. A template exists to serve the encyclopedia in some way (helping editing or reading) and if it's not used, in the caveats above, it should be deleted.--[[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 07:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', unused templates can hold interesting history that needs preserving. Also, deleting templates that have been widely used destroys old revisions of articles. And per Uanfala. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 07:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*: "this destroys old revisions" is not an argument that TfD seems to be accepting: [[Template:Persondata]] was deleted. [[User:Pppery|{{3x|p}}ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*::Yeah, that argument is a flawed argument from its root, as the whole deletion process of TfD destroys old revisions all the time. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 20:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::It is sometimes relevant. For Persondata, old revisions just have a redlinked template at the bottom. That is not a problem. Deleting templates used within the text (convert-like ones) is a much more serious problem. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Uanfala and Kusma. I'm generally not opposed to cleanup but the above-mentioned risks are clearly higher than the potential benefits. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 08:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I've supported and even proposed the ability to PROD unused templates, since it takes a step out of the deletion process but allows users seven days to oppose and potentially discuss its deletion and use. Speedy deletion offers none of that. [[User:Nihlus|<span style="padding:2px 2px;font-variant:small-caps;color:#000;letter-spacing:-0.5px">'''Nihlus'''</span>]] 09:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Some unused templates, such as {{tl|Roads legend}} and {{tl|Trillium Line route diagram detailed}}, are nevertheless permanently stored in template space, and they may be linked to Wikidata items which are structurally useful. I would support if there were a provision for certain templates – such as templates explicitly marked as historical, templates with incoming links from articles, template sandboxes, templates for which T5 has previously been declined, and templates which have been otherwise marked as ineligible for T5 – to be ineligible for T5 deletion. [[User:Jc86035|Jc86035]] ([[User talk:Jc86035|talk]]) 10:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. While I think the basic idea is good, there are too many nuances and exceptions to the point where I believe a CSD to be untenable. I think the proper solution is to expand PROD to templates so the distinction becomes potentially controversial vs. uncontroversial, and I would support such a proposal. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*:I was thinking I'd like to see template prod as well, but [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_67#New_criterion_-_T4,_aka_Template_PROD|that's a discussion for a different page]]. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 15:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*::No, that was not a template PROD but another CSD proposal disguised as a "PROD". A template PROD would be simply expanding [[WP:PROD]] to include (unused) templates. If you read that discussion, I had opposed that proposal for that very reason. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 16:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*:::Either way, this isn't the page for it, was the point I was making. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the above opposers and the many previous discussions where a CSD criterion for unused templates has been rejected. Not all templates need to be used at all times (e.g. {{temp|help me}} may be unused at any given moment), not all subst-only templates are marked as such, some templates should be kept so as not to break old revisions, etc, etc. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*: C1 exists despite the fact that [[:Category:Wikipedians looking for help]] may be empty at any given moment. Why can't T5 be implemented in the same way? [[User:Pppery|{{3x|p}}ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 18:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per those above who have already highlighted many situations in which a template with zero transclusions should be kept anyway, i.e. there are good reasons why zero transclusion templates should not be deleted without prior discussion. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' {{ping|Thryduulf}} and a few others have made a very valid point that there are some templates that at any given moment may have no transclusions ({{tl|help me}} for example). {{u|Pppery}} raised a good counter argument about C1 accounting for sometimes empty categories. This is why we have {{tl|Empty category}}. With that in mind, I 100% agree that something would be needed to document that some templates may have zero transclusions at any given moment. I'm curious those who have objected based on this point alone, if we were able to account for this case would you be more supportive of this? I have added a new criteria to the top of this RFC to account for that case. It would seem to me that it would be pretty easy to add some documentation to the new CSD criteria that exempts templates that may at any given moment have no transclusions.
:Additionally, I'm curious if there are additional conditions that would cause some of you to be more supportive of the idea? For example, if we said that the template must be at least 1 year old instead of just 6 months? {{u|Thryduulf}} thank you for raising that point, it wasn't something I had considered and definitely needs to be accounted for. A reminder, the goal of this CSD criteria is to expedite the process of deleting old unused templates that have been sitting around for a long time and are unused. It is not my intention to facilitate a method for gaming the system and quickly nuking templates someone just doesn't like. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Redrose64|SoWhy|Jc86035|Thryduulf|Ivanvector}} please see above comment. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::My opposition to this criteria is based on far more than just on that one point, and still stands. For example the older a template is the higher the chance of breaking old revisions. If a template has been around for a year without causing problems then I'm not seeing any reason why deletion of it ''needs'' expediting. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::Regarding your question about an {{tl|Empty category}} equivalent for templates, {{tl|Subst only}} will account for most of the templates that have no transclusions, with the caveat that some templates use {{tl|Substitution}}, which allows a custom message, and thus requires examination to determine whether the jist is that it's a template that must be substituted. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 20:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::Still a no for me, the temporarily-unused template (like {{tl|help me}}) is just one of the issues raised. I'm actually more concerned about borked page histories that rely on templates that are later deprecated. I'm not against deleting unused templates, I'm only opposed to doing it without having a discussion to consider all the angles first. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Again? We just discussed this in December. See [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposal to add T4: Unused]]. I'll just quote my comment from then:
<blockquote>Alas, this has been proposed, many, many, many, many times. The iterations sometimes vary, such as just for user namespace templates, or just for those "not encyclopedic", with varying waiting periods or age requirements. Just some of these discussions are: [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposed tweak to T3|/Archive 72#Proposed tweak to T3]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 10#Orphaned templates|/Archive 10#Orphaned templates]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 67#New criterion - T4, aka Template PROD|/Archive 67#New criterion - T4, aka Template PROD]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#New CSD - T4 Unused userbox that is more than 30 days old|/Archive 44#New CSD - T4 Unused userbox that is more than 30 days old]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 42#T4: Unused template|/Archive 42#T4: Unused template]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive_52#Deprecated_templates|/Archive_52#Deprecated_templates]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 22#Speedy deletion of unused templates?|/Archive 22#Speedy deletion of unused templates?]], [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 59#Gauging opinion on a possible new criterion for templates|/Archive 59#Gauging opinion on a possible new criterion for templates]]. There have also been several proposals at [[WT:PROD]] for this (reportedly four in 2007 alone). There seem to be three reasons this has never been adopted. Firstly, as pointed out by [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]], templates that are intended to be substituted have no transclusions by design, and a summary process like CSD is not efficient to distinguish those not transcluded by design from those by circumstance. Secondly, CSD is generally for urgent deletions and, although TfD is busy, it is not backlogged enough (with deserved thanks to [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] (above), [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] and others) to warrant the use of a summary process like this, particularly since an unused template is not an urgent cause for deletion. Thirdly, that a template is unused is not, in any guideline, a dispositive reason to delete it; rather, it is just a relevant consideration; therefore, it would be egregious to make it a dispositive reason to speedily delete it before there is consensus on whether this should be decisive for a deletion discussion.</blockquote>
:--[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
:I want to echo what {{u|Tavix}} said, because he hit it on the head. CSD should be quick and straightforward — the least amount of judgment or gray area required, the better. This proposal would require users to:
: 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)
:#Ensure the template isn't substituted
:'''[[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)
:#Ensure it's older than 180 days
: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)
:#Check that it has no transclusions
: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)
:#Check if any redirects have transclusions or history that might have been merged there
{{abot}}
:#Somehow know whether this template may have been used occasionally but not right now even though it's not substituted(???)
:#Know whether any of its redirects may have also been used occasionally but not right now
:That's nowhere near tenable for a SD criterion. A TPROD process might work, but this is too complicated for speedy deletion. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:As usual, I'm with Amory. Too many criteria for a CSD, any questionable template should be sent to Tfd. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment/Question''': How many templates fit the proposed criteria today? Are we talking about 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, or more? An order of magnitude (backed up by a reasonable method of arriving at that number) would be helpful in this discussion. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
**As a first approximation, there's 90684 non-redirect pages in the template namespace that currently aren't transcluded from any other page that were created before 2018-06-27 ([[quarry:query/33701]]). So something less than that - the count includes subst-only templates, and template sandboxes, and template documentation pages, and so on. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
**Excluding pages with names ending in "/sandbox", "/testcases", or "/doc" brings the total down to [[quarry:query/33707|83752]]. Further excluding templates that themselves transclude {{tl|require subst}} and/or {{tl|subst only}} brings it down to [[quarry:query/33742|82204]]. Even supposing that many subst-only templates aren't documented as subst-only, there's only 518284 total non-redirect pages in the Template namespace. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
***Interesting. I wonder why [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates]] shows only about 13,446 templates before it starts to list redirects (and why would it list redirects, which are cheap?). It seems that a better set of queries is needed, perhaps one or two that implement some of the criteria listed at the top of this section. That might allow people who want to take templates to TFD (or label them as subst-only) to have an easier time of it, allowing all of us (or most of us, at least) to achieve our goals. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
* I find the deletion of templates very annoying when reviewing old page revisions where they were used. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 22:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
**I'm pretty sure the criteria under discussion would prevent that from happening. CSD would apply only to templates that are unused. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
***Nope. This is for templates that are currently unused, not for ones that were never used. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'll give a current real example to illustrate why I disagree with this proposal. At [[Template talk:URL #Infobox input may vary, same output preferred]], there was a request for code that "{{tq|accepts all input forms, then reformats it as needed into good {{tl|URL}}}}". Eventually we've arrived at updated functionality in [[Module:URL]] and a new template called [[Template:URL2]] that's much more user-friendly in infoboxes than [[Template:URL]]. Take a look at the comparison between the outputs and judge for yourselves whether {{tl|URL2}} has potential, especially as it doesn't throw an error in an infobox that uses Wikidata (which may provide blank input to the template). But {{tl|URL2}} is [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:URL2|not used in article space]] at present, so unless somebody uses it in the next x days, it would be deleted under this criterion. What value does that add to the encyclopedia? What happened to [[WP:TIND]]? Why would I spend time creating potentially useful code if I knew there was a deadline imposed for somebody to use it? If potentially useful code keeps being deleted, what will you do when editors asks for new functionality but all the coders are too fed up with having their work deleted to bother with it? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 23:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
* <p>'''Oppose''' - no matter how many ways these proposals are dressed, I will {{em|stubbornly oppose}}; unused will never be a synonym for unusable (a criterion I would support) and it will never mean its condition is final, and so absolute that every potential for use in the future is also precluded (only its deletion can accomplish that). And, so too is it fact that a template's deletion, after discussion at TfD, does not remotely suggest that discussion itself is not beneficial, or even necessary.</p><p>In closing, I'd like to say: I find the proximal nearness of this discussion to its most recent counterpart more than a little disturbing. I hope when it closes, its proponents will accept the consensus achieved (or lack thereof) respect the mandate in its remit, and stifle the inclination to be heard again. These matters are settled, their questions have been thoroughly answered, and enough has been vested already. Moving on is the only course to follow from here, please follow that course!--[[User:John Cline|John Cline]] ([[User talk:John Cline#Top|talk]]) 04:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)</p>
*'''Oppose'''. Mere disuse is a bad reason to delete a template, if for no other reason than per SmokeyJoe and Cryptic. If they're not problematic, keep them, since otherwise you're damaging old revisions for no good reason. Also, per Cryptic's stats, this would involve a very large number of pages, even after you skip the ones that are always supposed to be substituted, the new creations, and the temporary ones. We shouldn't declare such a large number of pages currently speedy-deletable, except after a big community discussion on whether such deletions are appropriate. Look at the way G13 was originally handled; it was much bigger than merely a conversation here. Unless they come out of a big discussion, the only way we should create new speedy criteria is if they cover a class of pages that is rare at the moment because the pages are constantly getting deleted at XFD already. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' (additional to oppose above). Zackmann08 has recently TFD'd hundreds of unused templates. The results seem to indicate to me that, while many are deleted unopposed, clearly not all are deleted, and the deletions are clearly not uncontroversial. So CSD for them is clearly wrong. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for similar reasons as in this recent MfD of unused templates: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused userbox template]]. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 22:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': There are enough corner cases that this could be dangerous. What about templates that are uses as preloads only (which aren't subst only, yet have zero transclusions)? What about templates that aren't technically subst only, but which don't have any hidden comment for tracking and have so far only been substed? How would criteria 4 be objectively judged, as any template could be defined as "sometimes unused"? As we've seen at TfD recently, figuring out whether or not a template is actually used is often not srtaightforward enough to be considered as a CSD. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</span>]]) 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': The old discussion already showed problems, it shouldn't have been simply reproposed after that short a time without addressing the issues raised before. [[User:ChristianKl|<span style='color: #0000EE;'>'''ChristianKl'''</span>]] ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫ 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' especially per Kusma and others. Deleting templates makes older revisions extremely difficult to read. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 15:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment'' note that [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused userbox template]] (and MfD for 250 unusued userbox templates) was closed as "keep", [[Template:Pollachi–Dindigul branch line]], [[Template:Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough]] and [[Template:Railway stations in Nottinghamshire]] were both brought to TfD as unused but rather than being deleted the templates were used. [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 2#Template:Trillium Line route diagram detailed]] is still open but is likely heading for a keep or no consensus close after being relisted - debate is about whether a template that is linked from article space is "unused". These show that "unused templates" fail the "uncontestable" and "objective" requirements for new criteria. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Uanfala covered what I was going to. I also agree this is basically forum-shopping since we just went over this in December. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
== G8 conflict? ==
== Talk pages of nonexistent articles that are written as articles and would be speedy deletable as articles ==
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?
On occasion, I stumble upon newly created pages in the talk namespace (recently, for example, [[Talk:Antonios torbey]]) that look like attempts at creating articles when the corresponding article page is nonexistent, but do not use talk pages for discussion, and could be deleted under a specific criterion such as A7 if they were articles. It seems that G8 would apply (talk page of a nonexistent page); however, G8 seems too broad in this case as it does not address the content of the page. Interestingly, Twinkle gives the option to tag such a page for A7, but from what I understand, criteria for content namespaces do not necessarily apply to their corresponding discussion namespaces, and no other criterion clearly outlines what to do in these cases.
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?
Thus, I ask, what should be done to avoid treating G8 as an umbrella term or misusing another criterion? Some ideas:
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)
# '''Apply G8''' using its broad definiton,
: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)
# '''Expand the article criteria''' to cover talk pages that would be eligible for speedy deletion as articles,
::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)
# '''Draftify''' and '''R2''' the resulting redirect,
: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)
# '''Create a new criterion''' or '''sub-criterion of G8''' along the lines of:
::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)
:: New article-like page created on a talk page that makes neither a credible claim of significance nor an attempt at discussion to promote the article to mainspace. This criterion would not apply if:
::* The content clearly outlines a proposal to create an article (e.g. rationale, possible sources)
::* There is a signature by the user or another indication that it is an attempt at communication.
::* The page could be made into an article that would not be eligible for speedy deletion (for users who only created the page in the wrong namespace).
== Procedure for rejected draftified articles and declined/rejected AfC submissions improperly moved or copies to mainspace ==
Thoughts? [[User:ComplexRational|ComplexRational]] ([[User talk:ComplexRational|talk]]) 18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
So, this is something I've seen happen in some cases, usually involving inexperienced editors who have just gotten autoconfirmed.
*Does this happen often? MfD would always be an option. One could move the page to Draft or Article space depending on how it looks, deleting the redirect if needed. It seems like a weird gray area that a one size fits all solution does not apply. The example could be tagged as G3 which fits all spaces. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
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. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:I delete such pages under [[WP:CSD#G8]] criteria. Similarly, sometimes I will see other misplaced (template space, etc.) attempts to start an article with content that would be speediable in article space and I will deleted them with an edit summary such as "misplaced [[CSD#G11]] candidate". No one has ever objected and I can't image anyone so rules-bound that they would. -- [[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
::Agree, G8 already takes care of those. I'm with Ed about other such pages as well: If a page was created in another namespace that is clearly meant to be an article (such as in Wikipedia-space), A-criteria apply to it as well because one could just move it to article space, delete it under an A-criterion and delete the redirect per G8. Of course, if the page is not clearly not ready or if there is possibly something to salvage, moving it to Draft is usually the better idea (similarly, misplaced user pages should just be moved to user-space). Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
:::I very, very strongly disagree that moving any page to a different namespace just so it can be speedily deleted can ever anything other than a gross abuse administrative privileges. If we wanted the A criteria to apply to anything outside the article namespace they would be G criteria (which is why A8 was replaced by G12) or there would be an equivalent criterion (e.g. A10, F1 and T3 all cover duplicates). If the page was intentionally created in the wrong namespace to deliberately circumvent a speedy deletion criterion (with the exception of creating pages in draft or userspace for testing or development) then G3 (vandalism) would apply. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
::::I think you misunderstand my comment: If someone created [[Wikipedia:John Doemerman]] when they obviously were trying to create [[John Doemerman]], then it would be completely correct to move the page to the right namespace, wouldn't it? And if after moving, someone nominated [[John Doemerman]] for deletion, it could be deleted via AFD, couldn't it? If so, then logically A-criteria also apply. There is no abuse in such cases, merely combining multiple allowed steps into one. Of course, if the page was not created somewhere else by mistake, then you would be correct. 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>]] 09:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:We shouldn't be moving talk page "articles" to mainspace if they're created there to circumvent [[WP:ACPERM]]. They should be draftified if created in good faith, otherwise use whichever G criteria applies best (only using G8 if there's no better option). [[User:Iffy|Iffy]]★[[User Talk:Iffy|Chat]] -- 20:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
*Regardless of why it was created in the wrong space you should always be moving pages obviously created in the wrong namespace to the correct location - if it's good enough to stand as a non-duplicate article already then move it to article space, if it isn't move it to draft space. If it would be a duplicate article then move it to article space then redirect it. In other situations MfD is the place to go. We should not be using G8 in this situation - it should either be moved to article or draft space or deleted using G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G10, G11, G12 or G14 if they apply; if none of them do and you still think it should be deleted then send it to MfD. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
**That's all very good as a general statement of principle, but a lot of the time it doesn't work in practice. If it's not in Draft:, User:, or mainspace, would be a speedy candidate in mainspace, and it wouldn't be a viable draft, there's no more reason to move it into draft than there would have been to draftify it if ''had'' been created in mainspace. To make this a bit more concrete, I've deleted 27 non-mainspace pages with summaries mentioning an A-series criterion but not G1 or G10-G14, listed at [[quarry:query/33689]]; and, while I haven't reviewed all of them today, of those that I did, the only ones I'm having any second thoughts whatsoever about speedying are the ones labeled A10. You'd seriously have draftified or mfd'd [[Template:Lillye (band)]] or [[WT:AB]] or [[WP:Kaifgames inc]]? —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 11:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
***Yes. I'd have draftified the first and last of those three, and either draftified or MfD'ed [[WT:AB]]. Chances are they would sit there until deleted under G13 without harming anybody or anything, but there is small chance they'd have been improved. If a page does not meet the letter and spirit of a CSD criterion then it is not speedy deletable, no matter how bad it is or anything else. If you think these should be speedy deletable then get consensus for a new criterion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose any wording changes'''. G8 permits the deletion of talk pages that don't have corresponding non-talk pages, so your suggestion #1 is appropriate. The only time G8 isn't appropriate is if the content's actually good, in which case the page can simply be moved to a different namespace, and then the redirect can be deleted as housekeeping. Also, note that many such pages are tests, which are already G2-deletable. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 03:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
: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)
== Proposal for new temporary criterion X3 ==
::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)
:::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)
A proposal to create a new temporary criterion X3, for Portal-related speedy deletions, has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3]]. PLease contribute to the discussion over there. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 13:23, 3 March 2019 (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)
== Extend R2 to portals ==
:{{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)
Two days ago [[WP:R2]] was boldly extended to apply to redirects from the portal namespace. There appears to be some disagreement at least on what exceptions there should be. Could we decide on all that here first? Pinging involved editors: {{u|Legacypac}}, {{u|Thryduulf}}, {{u|Tavix}}. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 19:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*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)
:Mainspace and Portal space are both reader facing content spaces. Draft space is for stuff that is not intended for readers. Links between Mainspace and Portal space and vice versa are fine but if a portal is draftified it is exactly like draftifying an article so the redirect should be immediately deleted. When there were 1700 mostly dead portals this was not frequent problem but now we have 4500 new automated portals that are being examined and I expect a bunch will be placed in some Draft holding pen out of view while consideration of their future is done. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Legacypac}}, it is not clear that this is a very common occurrence that would require it to be covered by CSD. Also, draft portals can just be left in portal space. If they are not linked to from any articles or other portals, there is no fundamental problem with keeping unfinished portals around in portal space. The mass-produced automatic portals should be deleted, not draftified. Classic portals with many subpages simply can't be moved around in any meaningful way, so instead of being draftified, they should just be tagged with some template that tells any accidental readers that it is unfinished and that they should go read something else. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 19:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' until [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals]] is resolved. I don't see the point in draftifying portals if they are going to be deleted anyway. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*{{ec}} Main → Portal and Portal → Main redirects should not be speedily deleted under R2 as they are both reader-facing namespaces with encyclopaedic content. Such redirects will not always be optimal but that is a matter that should be discussed at RfD as deletion is not going to be the best action for all of them. This means that, if R2 applies to portals at all (which I have no strong opinions about) then the main namespace needs to be listed as an exception. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:: agreed 100% with Thryduulf's refinement. I disagree with waiting because the nuclear option is not going to delete all portals, only many portals. There are a bunch of legacy portals that may well be draftified and dealt with seperately. I actually tagged a portal=>Draft redirect R2 but it did not display properly, then I tagged it housekeeping with a not it was R2 and that was accepted. I don't see this change as an expansion, more a refinement of wording based on the principle of the CSD. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Then how about a separate bullet point for R2 that includes any other namespace to draft, so we don't get a bunch of potentially-confusing exceptions and includes anything that has been draftified (eg: templates, books). --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Good idea. Add the words "Also any redirect to Draft namespace, except from user namespace." This way anything draftified from any random spot (like I saw someone post a draft as a category recently) can be moved and the redirect nuked. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Legacypac}}, redirects created because a page was obviously created in the wrong namespace are already covered under G6. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
::::{{u|Tavix}}, the question is why we would want to move pages from non-mainspace to draft anyway. I am unconvinced that this is a good idea, as many namespaces have their own special features. Draft books should be in Book space, just as draft TimedTexts should be in TimedText namespace. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 19:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::That makes sense to me. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The "special features" argument just convinced me no Portal should be in Draftspace. It breaks them anyway. Can you make that point at AN against the idea of sending Portals to Draftfor more work? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 19:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Legacypac}}, done. One problem with the current portals discussion is that it is so fragmented... but the AN discussion should fix the main issue soon. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
== Provide for CSD criterion X3: Mass-created portals ==
{{#section-h:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|Proposal 4: Provide for [[WP:CSD|CSD]] criterion X3}}
== Template editor or Admin request ==
Hi. Can a TE tag (or an admin delete) [[Template:Editnotices/Group/List of countries by Yazidi population]] and [[Template:Editnotices/Page/List of countries by Yazidi population]] for speedy deletion under [[WP:G6]]? I can't because its on the title blacklist. Thanks, --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 01:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{done}}. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 01:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
== R3 and recent ==
At [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Catgegory:Molloy College alumni]] the definition of "recent" has been mentioned. While there probably doesn't need to be a strict limit, it would be worth adding a footnote to a general time. Per the comments at the RFD maybe "generally less than 1 month old" and noting that generally a shorter time can be given for redirects that were just created as redirects than redirects created from page moves. {{Ping|Thryduulf|Tavix}} '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
*Per the criterion "This criterion does '''not''' apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created." (emphasis in the original) and in the context of page moves "recently" needs to be understood far more strictly than for redirects created as redirects as articles are more likely to gain incoming links from outside en.wp than redirects are. Something like "Generally less than about a month old" for redirects created as redirects, and something like "In most cases, around 2 weeks old or newer" for those created from page moves would get my support though. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
*This was ''just'' discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#What is recent?]]. I think 3-6 months sounds right to me, personally. --[[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> 14:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
**I would be fine with Thryduulf's reccomendations, obviously common sense should be a factor to, a clearly implausible redirect that's 2 months old might stand a better change of being deleted under R3 than a less implausible redirect created 2 hours ago. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
**I would also be fine with Tavix's suggestion of 3-6 months. Anything longer than 6 months does almost always not qualify. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 14:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
***Common sense is precisely ''why'' there isn't a firm number, and why I would be wary to define one now because it would take away some discretion on the edge cases. --[[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> 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
****That RFD does indicate the problem with not specifying though. In that case I was tempted to (and wasn't far of doing so) tag it with R3. If Thryduulf thinks its 1-4 weeks and I thought anything up to around a year, that's quite a difference. IMO a vague pointer to not more than 3-6 months may be beneficial (again just as a footnote rather than in text). '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 14:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
*****I am absolutely ''not'' fine with 3-6 months as that's way too long in all but extreme edge cases (if something has been around that long it needs to be evaluated to see if it has links and/or uses - not something that is suitable for speedy deletion). A hard number is not appropriate, I agree, which is why I phrased my suggestions using "generally" and "about". [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
******Something I remember reading years ago which I found again is [[User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion]] in which #10 says "If a redirect exists since 2004 and you think it's implausible, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion". '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
{{od}}The RfD concerns a redirect one year old, which basically everyone agrees doesn't qualify as R3. I made my thoughts known in the recent discussion, but as has been said there and here, a level of discretion is valuable. More to the point, if you think there's a chance something might not qualify or there may be some concerns, it's probably better to go the XfD route rather than speedy. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 15:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
:Absolutely, if you have any doubt that something meets a speedy deletion criterion then it doesn't - and this applies to every criteria. The goal here is not to remove discretion, but to give ''guidance'' (not strict rules) for what "recent" means in context. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
== Proposal: Expand G13 to outline drafts ==
{{Archive top|This was resolved by the original proposers already [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)}}
Should [[WP:G13|CSD G13]] be expanded to include subpages of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outlines#Outline_starts:|WP:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts]]? —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. These draft outlines have by and large not been updated in a few years. The only thing keeping them alive is that they were not created in the proper namespace. Were they in draftspace, they would have pretty much all been deleted. [[WP:WEBHOST|Wikipedia is not a web host.]] —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' there are around 700 according to some info I found. Most are mindless mass fill in the blank mass creations while others are a sea of redlinks. Every one of these Drafts duplicates an existing title in mainspace. No change to Twinkle is required, all the Gx CSDs work in Wikipedia space. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 17:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' expanding G13 just for this narrow one-off issue. The solution is to move these pages to the Draftspace and then apply g13 as usual (IMHO a pagemove does not "reset the clock" on the 6-mo waiting period). Would not oppose expansion of G13 to cover all drafts housed in any WikiProject, however. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
:* and the list of pages is [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline|here]]: it's 183 non-redirected pages; achievable in a single nom. by a dedicated MfD-er. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Since the problem is smaller than I understood it to be I now think this group of interested users can move and G13 or MfD as applicable. Faster than trying to get consensus for an expanded CSD. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
* I also agree that a WikiProject's drafts shouldn't be treated like userspace. They should be moved to draftspace and / or deleted if they dead. '''Support''' both this and UnitedStatesian's extended proposal. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 18:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
* Support expanding G13 to include all drafts in Wikipedia space. I also agree that fixing the namespace does not reset the clock on G13. Draft space and G13 were created to get drafts out of the AFC Wikiproject space so this is just tweaking the wording to match the original intent. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. We should not be expanding any CSD criteria for such a small reason (note the frequency requirement for new criteria applies equally to modifications). ''IF'' they are actually causing problems then they can be dealt with at MfD. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - seems to be covered in the X3 proposal above. If that passes then this is unnecessary, and if not then there is also no consensus for this back-door. Also, perennial oppose to expanding G13. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
:*To clarify, X3 as drafted would only cover pages in the Portal: namespace, not these, which are in the Wikipedia: namespace. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. There isn't even a good reason to delete them. They are an appropriate as the WikiProject subpages. What is the issue? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
::Says the guy who opposed the existance of these same pages several years ago because they would become mainspace pages. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 02:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
::: I don’t remember exactly what you are talking about. I oppose portals in mainspace, but they never were. I oppose creative content forking, but I encouraged auto-creation of Portals that would auto-update with editing of articles, eg Portals transcending ledes from articles depending on their position in category trees. I haven’t been following the activity, but it sounds like TTH has gone too big too fast. This reaction however is an over reaction. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 03:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Too different stupid projects SmokeyJoe. This is about hos Outlines of Everything project. Today I found a discussion where you did not want these outlines in mainspace ever. It was an interesting read. You argued they duplicated portals and that they were content forks. I agree with you. He later abandoned Outlines and moved to Portals, with the same rational and agendas. The two projects are like siblings. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
::::: I have a fair memory of this. Yes, outlines in mainspace were content forking. Yes, outlines and portals were and are two manifestations of the same thing, attempts at readable summaries of broad areas mainly for navigation purposes. I advised TTH to merge the two concepts, to abandon mainspace outlines, and to look to real time auto-generation of portal contents to avoid the problem of content forking. New portals, continuing portals, all portals except for the very few actually active portals, should contain no creative editing. They should be created by coding. TTH has followed my advice, so I should be pleased, and can hardly be quick to support deletion. However, he has failed [[WP:MEATBOT]]. He should have demonstrated working prototypes, maybe ten working auto-portals that update themselves based on changing article content. He should not have created thousands of new portals. The rancour generated is understandable, and completely to have been expected. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' if they are causing harm, propose a mass deletion at MfD; no policy changes required. If they are not causing harm, [[WP:NOTCLEANUP]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Too much of a niche; [[WP:MFD|miscellany for deletion]] is well equipped to handle such pages if necessary. <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:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 04:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
===Modified Proposal: Add Wikipedia Namespace Drafts to G13===
Per the previous discussion we should add point '''"4. Article drafts in Wikipedia namespace"''' to cover misplaced drafts or drafts hosted under wikiprojects. Draft namespace was designed to host Wikiproject drafts for collabertive editing and was initially populated with drafts from a wikiproject. The same reasons for G13 apply to other versions of draftspace under a wikiproject now. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 20:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - if an article draft is misplaced in the Wikipedia namespace, or other namespaces, the accepted treatment is to move it to Draft: space. Then G13 applies as normal. This extra proposal is unnecessary. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
:Misplaced drafts can easily be moved to Main or Draft space for further use as appropriate. Multiple pages such as the one mentioned above can be handled by a one-time consensus at MFD. I don't see a real need to expand the scope of G13. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 20:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for lack of need per SoWhy and Ivanvector. This also does not address most of the reasons for opposition to the original proposal and actually might make some worse. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Header|New Criteria criterion #3]], no frequent need. Also, I can very easily imagine this broad scope criterion being misused to delete things that should not be deleted. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] is wrong to state "Draft namespace was designed to host Wikiproject drafts for collabertive editing and was initially populated with drafts from a wikiproject". That was true ONLY for one specific WikiProject, being [[WP:AfC]], which was inviting hoards of newcomers to create WikiProject subpages. These newcomers were not WikiProject members. This is a big distinction. Pages properly organised in WikiProjects, by their WikiProject members, should not be subject to unwanted cleanup by deletion by non-members. [[WP:PERFORMANCE]] issues excepted. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}
== New F Crtiera - Unused/unusable explicit image. ==
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a porn host. Therefore I am asking if there should be a CSD that allows users and admins to 'speedy' delete explicit image that are unused, or which cannot be used within the context of encyclopaedia. This would in effect make the NOPENIS policy used on Commons a grounds for speedy deletion of the same kind of media on English Wikipedia.
The amount of existing media that would be affected is hoped to be tiny. [[User:ShakespeareFan00|ShakespeareFan00]] ([[User talk:ShakespeareFan00|talk]]) 16:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
: It'll need some refinement on what is considered unusable and for why, but it's a sensible proposal. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 16:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:Unusable explicit images (or those uploaded and then used for shock value) are covered by [[WP:CSD#G3]] vandalism already. How common are cases not covered by G3? —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 17:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{tq|The amount of existing media that would be affected is hoped to be tiny.}} See item #3 in the banner above about proposing new criteria. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
: "Unusable" is subjective so can be dropped if that would make the proposal more acceptable....
To me unusable images would be (non-exclusive criteria) :
* Images that lack full sourcing, authorship or attribution as to where the media was obtained from, and who the creators were.
* Those that are of low technical quality, (out of focus, JPEG artifacts, badly lit) such that whats displayed isn't clear in relation to any provided context.
* Images that cannot legally be displayed or shared with respect to US law (with consideration being given to the equivalent laws in other jurisdictions, such as those of the uploader)
The following would not be "unusable" grounds within the context of the proposed CSD, but would be grounds for requesting FFD or PROD on an image:-
* Images where model or participant consent is not explicitly stated.
* Images lacking a detailed contextual explanation of what the media contains, the articles in which it is intended to be used, and what points or content in those articles it is intended to support (essentially amounting to an "explicit image use rationale").
[[User:ShakespeareFan00|ShakespeareFan00]] ([[User talk:ShakespeareFan00|talk]]) 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is also [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], so "explicit" is not a workable definition for a new criterion. Lack of authorship, attribution and source leads, in most cases, to lack of licensing information and is thus covered by F4 or F11. Files that are so corrupt that the subject is not identifiable should probably be covered by F2 already. "Illegal" is not something an admin can really determine and is thus not objective enough for speedy deletion. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 18:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
: You can always just PROD the files ... [[User:Pppery|{{3x|p}}ery]] ([[User talk:Pppery|talk]]) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:How often do images like this come up at FFD? Do they always close as "delete"? Are we being swamped by them to the point that the FFD regulars are not finding enough time to handle the non-explicit images that are sent there? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
::As an FFD volunteer, we get hardly any. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">– [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 09:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': As mentioned, I see where you're going, but most of your edge cases can be covered by perhaps amending G3 with an "images uploaded solely for shock value with no possible encyclopedic use". <span style="border:1px solid #445A38;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#8f5902">ViperSnake151</span>]] [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#fff;background:#88A976;"> Talk </span>]] </span> 17:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*:G3 already covers that, see [[Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism]]: {{xt|Uploading shock images [...]}} Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Out of the roughly 2000 deletions I have performed, I don't remember any that would fit this criterion. The speedy deletion policy is designed to reduce the volume at xFD. In the absence of a significant volume of problematic material, I can't see why we would adopt such a subjective policy with so many clear possibilities for disagreement. '''[[User:UninvitedCompany|<span style="color:green">Uninvited</span>]][[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Company]]''' 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Out of the roughly 13,000 deletions I have performed, I don't remember any that would fit this criterion. Since what constitutes "explicit" is always going to be subjective—what's porn to you might be a noteworthy artwork or a useful medical illustration to me—such things are never going to be appropriate for speedy deletion unless they already fall into one of the existing criteria, in which case we don't need another. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as the criterion is too complex and subjective. In my deleting I have not come across such images either, so they must be rare. Removal from articles can be done, and the pic left for FFD. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
: Query: Which current criteria would cover images that if assesed by a competent legal professional as potentially "obscene" (with respect to US Federal law, and those of the State of Virginia) would have to be removed for legal reasons? (Also such images should presumably be reported to a contact off wiki.) ? [[User:ShakespeareFan00|ShakespeareFan00]] ([[User talk:ShakespeareFan00|talk]]) 08:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|ShakespeareFan00}} That would likely be [[WP:G9]], since its up to [[User:WMF Legal]] to decide that content {{tq|would have to be removed for legal reasons}} --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 08:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{ec}}[[WP:G9]] - the WMF has a [[m:Legal|legal team]], and it is ultimately their job to assess if something is illegal and so to remove it. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 08:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*If an image is unused & unusable, does it matter if it's explicit or not? "I '''oppose'''" is explicit, and I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. On the other hand, "I fucking oppose", is veering into obscenity. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 08:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
== G14 ==
As far as I was aware DAB pages that have a primary topic and there is only 1 other ([[WP:2DABS]]) can be deleted as unnecessary DAB pages. This was quite clear in the past but it looks like since G6 was split, the inclusion of situation where there are only 2 topics and there is a primary topic has been lost for some reason. See [[User talk:Patar knight#Ross Greer (disambiguation)]] and [[User talk:Sir Sputnik#Magnus Lindberg (disambiguation)]]. I would note though that DAB entries that are red links and part title matches do still count as "entries" for this purpose. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 18:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:Looking at the plain wording of G14 as it is now, if there is a primary topic and a non-primary topic on a 2DAB, then it is still disambiguating two extant articles and ineligible for G14. My experience has been that they are then typically PRODed, so they show up at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Article_alerts]] for a week and gives room for editors who work with DABs to review them. This interpretation fits with the framework of CSD as getting rid of unambiguous cases and letting other deletion processes deal with less clear cases.
:For DABs, those "disambiguating" one or zero DAB entries absolutely fail as DAB pages and are arguably actively unhelpful in navigation, while those with two entries do not. Those with two entries are more easily converted into valid DABs with the addition of only one additional entry or might be converted into a 2DAB page with no primary topic if the article at the base name doesn't have a solid claim to be the primary topic. Having a 2DAB page is at worst neutral, and an additional week to potentially save it isn't a big deal.
:Looking through the history of G14/G6 I don't think that it ever explicitly allowed deletion of 2DABs with a primary topic:
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=310945508&oldid=310792169 August 2009]: Added to G6 as "deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=531641963&oldid=530251911 January 2013]: G6 is broken out into bullet points
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=534646844&oldid=534489223 January 2013]: "unnecessary is clarified as "those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles."
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=771844158&oldid=771811258 March 2017]: "links" to zero/one extant article is changed to "disambiguates" zero/one extant articles.
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=874641551&oldid=874283383 December 2018]: G14 is split off from G6 with minimal changes.
:My interpretation of [[User:Tavix|Tavix]]'s change in March 2017 is that linking the previous wording technically allowed DAB pages with zero valid dab entries but some links to existing articles, either in invalid DAB entries or a "See also" section, to escape speedy deletion. The new wording shows that the linked articles must be part of a valid dab entry, not just any link whatsoever. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 01:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
*I would '''support''' a speedy deletion option for disambiguation topics where there is one clear primary topic, only one other topic, and for which the primary topic page already contains a hatnote to the other topic, with no link to the disambiguation page. In that case, any reader looking up the term is already going to be taken to a page with an existing hatnote leading to the other topic, so there is no point in the disambiguation page existing. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
*I fully agree with Patar knight. Dab pages with a primary topic and only one other link are pretty useless most of the time, but the emphasis here is on "most of the time". Such pages are normally dealt with using PROD, and often enough it would happen that somebody might come along and expand the page with additional entries. Or it might turn out that the page is a result of a bad move. Or it could disambiguate between two articles only because of a previous overzealous attempt at cleanup that had removed valid links. Etc, etc. There are too many possible scenarios and too many nuances for CSD to be appropriate, and there are too few pages of this kind getting deleted for there to be a need for an extension of the existing criteria. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*I agree with Uanfala that extending CSD to cover primary+1 disambiguation pages is not appropriate. In addition to the scenarios they list, in some cases there will be people navigating directly to the disambiguation page where they know or suspect the topic they are looking for is not primary but do not know what its title is. Whether this is likely will depend on factors that cannot be judged by a single admin reviewing CSD nominations. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
==X3 ==
Can someone add Permalinks to the AN discussion, the recently closed MfDs where various users expressed a need for X3, and the VPP where various users requested some version of X3? The discussion is so fagmented but the conclusion in favor of X3 is very clear. Also we are going to call it X3 not P3 even though it is for Portals. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed the X3 [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as mass created Portals]] now exists and pages get added when [[Template:Db-x3]] is added. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
'''List of pages''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=500&type=create&user=The+Transhumanist&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=] there may be a better way to list them. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 01:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:Indeed there is - that doesn't list pages created before June 27 or pages created outside of Portal: and then moved there, and includes redirects and already-deleted pages. [[quarry:query/34239]] (all pages) or [[quarry:query/34240]] (omits subpages). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 03:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
::Useful Query for quantifying the issue, not so useful for tagging as the page names are not clickable and don't turn red as they are deleted. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 09:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=5000&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=The+Transhumanist&namespace=100&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end= this query] what you're looking for? (Note that if someone else created the page at a different title and TTH moved it to the portal namespace, this query will show TTH as the creator, so double-check the history before tagging unless it has an obvious edit summary like "created new portal".) ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 09:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Legacypac}} Quarry queries can be downloaded as a wikitable - see [[User:Galobtter/Portals by TTH]]. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 09:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Iridescent's and Galobtter's queries are perfect. Look at the creation rate - I spotted 5 a minute in some cases.
:::I'm not aware of any Portals created elsewhere and they don't work elsewhere (like draft) so page moves from outside spaces are not likely to be a big problem. He did rename a few Portal though so watch for that.
:::X3 does not address the equally problematic "rebooted" portals[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals/Tasks#Please_remove_Featured_portal_star_from_these_portals] or the approx 1000 built by other editors in exactly the same way using his instructions. I started building a list here [[User:Legacypac/not x3 portals]] but it is painstaking to check each one. Better to wait till X3 pages are deleted first as so many Portals one checks will go X3. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 09:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
== Clarification on G8 ==
{{transcluded section|Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion}}
{{#section-h:Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion|Point of clarification re CSD of '''UNUSED''' doc templates}}
== Proposal: Expand G5 to include undisclosed paid editing ==
===Main proposal===
{{rfc|policy|prop|rfcid=66F0023}}
Currently [[WP:G5|G5]] is actionable for articles created by editors violating a block or ban. This is a ''personal'' block or ban: "To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban."
Well, an undisclosed paid editor is "banned" from editing, not by Wikipedia policy but by the WMF's Terms of Use. This ban isn't directed at any specific editor, but editing without disclosing payment is blockable.
A discussion on the OTRS mailing list suggests that it would make sense, as an additional deterrent, to treat articles created by such editors as any other G5 article, but the wording of G5 would need to change.
We have the Terms of Use, and we have G5, and the purpose of G5 seems like a good fit for enforcing the Terms of Use ban on undisclosed paid editing.
I suggest adding after the bullet list in G5:
:"In addition, because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by Wikimedia Foundation policy, articles created by undisclosed paid editors are candidates for speedy deletion under G5."
Or an alternative suggested by Cryptic below:
:"In addition, because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by Wikimedia Foundation policy, articles created by editors who have been indef-blocked for undisclosed paid editing are candidates for speedy deletion under G5."
What say everyone? ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 22:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Anachronist}} I like the idea... My question becomes how do you determine that the user IS an undisclosed paid editor? I've personally accused someone of being a paid editor to later find out it was a high school kid who was just really excited about the product. Page certainly needed to be reworked, but didn't really qualify for CSD. I would argue this sort of article really needs to go through [[WP:AFD]] so that the paid editor status can be proven/flushed out... Now, if on the other hand, the editor in question is blocked as a result of paid editing, that is another story. Just some food for thought. I like the idea. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
* <s>Support</s>.
: Can't support deletion because the criterion is not object, per User:Thryduulf. ([[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_66#New_criteria|we've been here before]]). However, '''''something'''' has to be done. Counter proposal is to [[Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product|Quarantine]] suspected UPE product. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]])
:: <small> Support toughening the current rules to better than toothless. Consistent, or even prerequisite of this, is that at [[WP:COI]] most of the occurrences of the toothless "should" are changed to "must".
:: COI editors MUST NOT edit articles directly; instead they may make requests and suggestions on the talk page.
:: COI editors MUST NOT create articles; instead they may use [[WP:AfC]].
:: UPE editors are a worse-problem subset of COI editors, and the boundary is indistinct. Where a page is the sole product, ignoring minor edits, of a UPE editor or editors, an admin ''may'' delete it per WP:CSD#G5(UPE).
:: Post deletion of UPE product, if the editor later sufficiently declares and complies, the deleted page should not be [[WP:REFUND]]ed, instead, the COI editor may start again, ensuring that all COI editing has links back to a declaration older than the edits. To comply conservatively with attribution requirements, if they request an emailed version, email only the references (there is no creative content in a reference list).
:: I would like to go further, and require paid editors to use a special alternative account, named with the suffix "(paid)". Eg. [[User:Example (paid)]]. This account must be a fully declared alternative account, linking to & from all other accounts controlled by the same person. The right to privacy is compromised by engaging in paid editing. Paid editing accounts must not be allowed to vanish leaving their product live in mainspace.
:: --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 23:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
::: I don't support excluding [[Wikipedians in Residence]] or WMF employees. If they are making edits for which they are paid to make, they should use similar declared alt. accounts and suffixed usernames: [[User:Example (WiR)]], and [[User:Example (WMF)]]. Not because they are problem editors, but to set the example for best practice. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
* '''Support'''. Just as I support banning ''any'' form of paid editing (except WIR) and deleting their contributions. Making money out of the work of the volunteers who create and maintain this encyclopedia is dishonorable and unethical. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as a straightforward and long overdue extension of [[WP:DENY]]. The only snag I can foresee is that proving UPE is hard, and it wouldn't be in the spirit of speedy deletion to use it when there's merely a suspicion. I'd suggest restricting the new G5 subcriterion to articles created by users who have subsequently been indefinitely blocked/banned for UPE. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Very strong oppose'''. In order for this to meet the requirements 1 and 2 for a new or expanded criterion (i.e. only applying to things that it should) it would need to be restricted to pages created by ''confirmed'' (not just suspected) undisclosed paid editors, ''for pay'' (i.e. not other articles they have created) who knew at the time of page creation that they needed to disclose and have not, after a reasonable opportunity to do so, disclosed in an appropriate location that they were/are paid to edit, ''and'' the creation was not otherwise permitted by the ToU. Given that it would be impossible for a single admin to verify even half of this it is not remotely suitable for CSD. Even if it were, almost all the actually problematic content would be suitable for speedy deletion under an existing criterion anyway (failing requirement 4 with the remainder probably failing requirement 3 also). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
** Actually, [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] makes an important point. It would be fine to G5 known UPE product, but nearly always, it is a mere suspicion, at best a DUCK test. That is why I proposed: [[Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product]]. Quarantine suspected UPE, blanked so that it looks not there, subpages so that "Quarantine" is in the title, but available for the author to defend themselves. Note that the proposal is rough with serious comments on altering the details, on its talk page. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
***{{reply|Thryduulf}} How about modifying the proposal to delete articles created by editors who have already been blocked for undisclosed paid editing? Often these are checkuser blocks. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 02:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
****{{replyto|SmokeyJoe}} See [[user:SoWhy|SoWhy]]'s point below - I would support this only if it applies only to pages that were created in violation of the ToU, which is not necessarily all of them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
***** [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]], I appreciate that principle, you want to discriminate between UPE-TOU violators and other pedestrian COI editors, but how can you tell the difference if you don’t ask? And if you ask, how can you expect an answer with neither stick nor carrot? And why not chase the pedestrian COI editors to answer a few little questions? —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 10:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
****** If you can't tell the difference between UPE and other COI editors then that is another reason why this cannot work - I oppose in the strongest possible terms penalising editors for breaching the ToU when they have done no such thing. If the article is non-neutral then fix it or delete it - you can do this already. If the article is neutral then there isn't a problem that requires deletion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
******* [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]]. How do you tell the difference between a UPE and another COI editor? Suppose both are newish accounts, all they have done is written a draft on WP:CORP-borderline company&products, a couple OK sources, a half dozen non-independent PR sources, and another half dozen mere-mention sources. This is typical. I don't think I can tell the difference without a little free form discussion. The problem is, most do not even answer. I suspect most are UPEs, but there is no proof. What would you do in this situation? Give the suspect UPEs the benefit of the doubt, and let them through? <br/> Do you have a problem with OK articles in mainspace when they are the product of undisclosed paid editing? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
********If there is no proof that an editor has broken the ToU then it is completely inappropriate for us to be treating them if they have. If there is a neutral, BLP-compliant article about a notable topic in the main namespace then the encyclopaedia would be harmed by deleting it (assuming it's not a copyvio) - why does it matter who wrote it? If the Foundation want editors to rigorously enforce the TOU prohibition on UPE then they need to (a) explicitly ask us and (b) give us the tools to do so reliably. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
********* That is logical. I think, for an editor that does not self-declare, given the privacy policy, there can never be proof. Are people getting hyped up about UPE for no good reason? Is there evidence of a problem? Beyond NPP and AfC thinking they have to worry about it? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
********** I've never seen any evidence that content written by (suspected) paid editors presents any problems that content of the same standard written by other editors does. If an article is irredeemably spammy it should be deleted, if an article is good quality it should not - who wrote it ins't relevant. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
***********I have never seen content written by an undisclosed paid editor that was any good. Often it looks superficially accurate but when you start looking at the refs they are typically poor and many often do not support the content they are placed behind. Paid editing is trying to mislead our readers and thus it harms our encyclopedia and our reputation. Those doing it are not interested in becoming editors who contribute high quality content but simple want to promote those who pay them and will try anything to continue to do so. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 12:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
************"I have never seen content written by an undisclosed paid editor that was any good." in which case it can and should be fixed or deleted like any other bad content - that the author was (or might have been) paid is irrelevant. However, I actually suspect that there is good content produced by UPE that doesn't get noticed because it's good and doesn't actually cause any problems. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''<s>Support</s>'''. Paid editing on Wikipedia is reaching crisis-level proportions and we need to deal with it as such. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 01:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:*'''Support option 2''' as it is more objective. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 13:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* Please explain how your suggestion relates to [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_66#New_criteria|the previous RFC]]. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 02:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*:I'm still waiting on an explanation of why we think the prior consensus has changed... would anyone care to let those persons know, also? --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
* Over half of AfC submissions are likely UPE or COI edits. This could really cut down the AfC workload. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 02:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*The way to make this criterion objective is to foist the uncertainty off on another process. To wit: the content should only be speedyable if its creator has already been indefinitely blocked as a paid editor. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 02:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support Option 2''' as it is clear cut easy to see. I'm going to suggest we try to feed a notice about COI and UPE to every submitter of content at AfC that someone might pay for. Maybe a bot can do that. Even if it get posted to editors that are writing historic topics etc who cares because it will raise awareness without accusing them. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' particularly at AFC. It is difficult to determine whether the writer is paid or has made a disclosure. So this is not suitable for a speedy deletion. At AFC pages will be examined to see if they are promotional or not. It gives a UPE editor a chance to learn they need to disclose. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 05:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::I'm suggesting a notification system to encourage disclosure. We would only speedy drafts at AfC created by blocked UPE users. Often these drafts get worked on by sock after sock so flushing them from the system would be a good thing. Why waste my volunteer time to ensure the UPE gets his/her paycheck? Why make it easy for them to violate our rules? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 05:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' How do you tell that something was created for undisclosed payments? Idle speculation and "I think so" is not clear enough. Besides, G11 is a thing for spammy articles. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 06:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:* G11 only catches the product of the most inept UPEs. Granted, there are lots of them, but they are noisy inept UPEs that will learn how to avoid G11, and G11 leaves no record for the non-admin reviewers to refer to when they try again, and again, and again. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
* Why does no one like my [[Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product|quarantine]] idea?
:: * The suspected UPE page can't be deleted, because the reviewer rarely can know it is UPE objectively enough for any acceptable CSD.
:: * It is not worth a community discussion for every suspected UPE creation, NPP and AfC reviewers have to be trusted on this to do something.
:: * The page has to be blanked, so that the UPE is not recognized for the work in progress.
:: * The page and every version of it has to have the ugly title, including "Quarantined", so that the UPE can't even send the sponsor a version link. (Achieved by the page move)
:: * if the author can declare, or explain that the are not a UPE, then the reviewer can move the page back, no admin functions required.
: The [[Wikipedia talk:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product|quarantine proposal talk page]] has productive input on details. I think the concept is the only viable action I've seen. A CSD based on the unknowable author=UPE condition is not workable. A CSD requiring the author to be blocked will miss 99% of the problem. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::Short answer on that proposal - too complex and too much work for reviewers. A blank in place for drafts might work with a message about UPE/COI much like we do with suspected copyvio. We could make it a CSD with a delayed deletion, it only shows up in the CSD pending list after X days. That can be programmed right into the CSD template. Give the user time to disclose and remove the CSD. Otherwise bye bye. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 07:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::: It is not meant to be work for the reviewer. It is meant to be less work than giving a reviewing comment. If the concept is agreed to, everything is easily scripted.
::: You can't have a CSD for ''suspected'' UPE. Anachronist's proposal is doomed for this reason, just like the previous one last time. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 07:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Possibly support #2 delayed'''. I could entertain supporting some kind of UPE-PROD which gives these editors the chance to disclose per Legacypac above or dispute the UPE and a block based on that. After all, just because an admin has decided to block someone for UPE does not mean they are an UPE. However, I do see the problem that in most cases, such a deletion mechanism will fail due to the uncertainties surrounding UPE and how to prove it. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 08:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2''' While I agree that suspicions of UPE are not sufficient for the deletion of a page (that's why we have the {{tlx|undisclosed paid}} template), if it is confirmed that a user has been editing in violation of Wikipedia's TOU, that's a good reason for deletion. As a comparative analogy, if a user is blocked for copyright violations, we delete pages they have created which are violating copyright, and we do so regardless of whether they were created before or after the block. In this scenario, we are blocking a user for violating the TOU, and the pages that they created prior to being blocked are part of that violation - they should, therefore, be deleted. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] [[User talk:Yunshui|<sup style="font-size:90%">雲</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|<sub style="font-size:90%">水</sub>]] 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*:I don't think that analogy is apt. If we block an editor for repeated copyright violations, we still have to check whether all their creations really fit G12 because just because they violated copyright in some cases does not mean they did so in all cases. Similarly, someone blocked for UPE does not mean all their articles were created because they were paid for it. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 08:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*::Having dealt with some large cases of copyright issues, after finding copyright violations in 10 random edits from a single user, yes large scale rollback becomes a perfectly reasonable option and one I have carried out. At this point instances that do not look like copyright violations from this individual might just mean that the source they copied from is no longer easily avaliable online rather than the content being "okay". [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 13:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support (option 2)''' - Articles written by confirmed UPEs should be speedily deleted for two reasons: 1) there is a high probability that the articles were also paid for, and 2) deleting all article created by the UPE would have the same disincentivising effect as it does for socks of blocked/banned users.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 11:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Very strong support of both options''' plus suggestions by [[User:SmokeyJoe]]. When a family of 3 plus socks are blocked and all the articles created by these socks are 1) promotional 2) barely / not notable 3) each sock makes a dozen small edits, waits a week, and then creates a perfect article in a single edit. It does not take a rocket scientist (or AI specialist) to identify this as undisclosed paid editing (and by accounts of a prior blocked user). I currently delete these articles as they are created by previously blocked users (we do not need to bury our heads in the sand). In fact all articles that follow this pattern could really be simple deleted. [[User:SmokeyJoe]] suggestions are excellent and are definitely required if we are going to allowed paid "promotional" editing to continue at all. My issue with paid editing in the type were those doing the paying have a COI regarding the subject matter in question (ie someone paying for an article about themselves or their business). The NIH/CDC paying someone to help improve articles about hearing loss for example is not an issue as the NIH/CDC do not have a COI with respect to the topic in question. They of course should not and do not work on content about the NIH or CDC itself. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 12:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
**If a family of socks are blocked then their contributions can already be deleted under G5 - why they were socking is irrelevant. The latter part of your comment just proves that paid editing (disclosed or otherwise), COI editing and promotional editing are three different issues - they are overlapping sets but all combinations of 0, 1, 2 and all 3 of them exist. If the content is bad it should be (and can be) fixed or deleted using existing processes so there is no need for this proposal; if the content is good then there is no need to delete it so there is no need for this proposal. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support Proposal 2''' - I also believe it is unjust and immensely unwise to block articles because they are believed to be from PAIDCOI editors. However I'm all for scrapping the work of confirmed paid editors. While we might actually do some collateral damage this way, it should make it much harder for the paid editor to keep doing his action as a number of his clients suddenly become grumpy. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' proposal 2 with a caveat that it is not very retrospective and only includes arrticles created from March 2018 because many upe articles that have been around for a few years have a lot of contributions from legitimate editors and the G5 criteria in practice is applied very unevenly so that some articles will be deleted no matter whether the other legitimate contributions are substantial and significant, regards [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 15:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Proposal 2, as it would include all pages they created, even those they were not paid to create. That, to me, is overreaching and suggests if an editor was paid to create one page and created 99 good pages without payment, all 100 pages are eligible for speedy deletion. That's not productive. '''Neutral''' for now on Proposal 1. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Smartyllama}} Both proposals would include all pages UPE created. The only difference is which users are covered, in proposal one it's everybody suspected to be an undisclosed paid editor (whether this is proven or not), in proposal 2 only those people who have been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing (whether proven or not). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*** In that case, '''Oppose Both''' but '''Support''' a potential third option which only includes pages the editor was actually paid to create, as those were the only edits in violation of WMF policy. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 18:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. UPEs have long been alleged to be socks at SPI. I don't know the stats, but certainly frequently they are ''not'' socks. I have no objection to some sort of proposal to add a G code for UPEs, but expanding G5 in this way would be very messy. As it is, many editors tag articles incorrectly, and there are admins that either don't understand the language of G5 or who IAR-go along with it. I suspect a new G code just for UPEs would also be messy, but let's at least keep our messes separate.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf and Bbb23. Additionally, the only valid reason for a UPE's contribs to be ''speedy'' deleted is already covered by [[WP:G11]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' unless it is limited to cases where the article "is the sole product, ignoring minor edits, of a [blocked] UPE editor or editors", per {{u|SmokeyJoe}}. I've seen plenty of blatently promotional articles rescued by uninvolved editors, and we wouldn't want to throw those babies out with the bathwater. --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</span>]]) 19:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I support the general idea but this version does not restrict itself to articles created for pay. If I accept a commission to write a paid article tomorrow and don't disclose it then any article I've ever written could be deleted under this. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 20:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
::::part of the point of this is to discourage people from doing just that. It wouldn't conceivably apply to you, because an editor with skill and experience and knowledge of WP, would know to declare. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::Sure, I have no desire to take up paid editing but the same principle applies. If an editor gets banned then G5 isn't used to delete everything they have ever written, even though that would be a deterrent to doing something ban-worthy. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2. ''' with the same understanding as for other G5s, that if a good-faith editor has edited it substantially, it does not apply. I have in the past tried to rescue articles of importance and clear notability even for UPEs, and this will make it more difficult, but considering the threat that they pose, it is necessary. I do point out that by adopting it we eliminate the possibility of a UPE reforming and declaring their earlier work. But this is not that much of a change, because even now they would have to declare their earlier work, tho it would not get speedy deleted. -- several such editors have contacted me, and they are not willing to declare earlier work regardless, claiming confidentiality. I would suggest proceeding very slowly withe earlier ones. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
**{{replyto|DGG}} What is the ''actual'' "threat" here that is not posed by unpaid COI edits? Why does this require speedy deletion of every article created someone we suspect of engaging in UPE - regardless of whether we are right, and regardless of whether that article was created for pay? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Unpaid COI editors are normally friends or associates or fans of the subject. They can, at best, be educated about our standards and will try to meet them and sometimes even go on to editing properly; at worst, they will quickly leave. We need to be flexible and open to potential good faith contributors. (If they're the subject in person, then it's a different problem--their sense of self-importance is involved, and they will generally become so obnoxious about it that we can quickly remove them.) Paid COI editors, the ones who are undeclared especially, almost never can be educated about our standards; they can be stopped at a particular article, but many of them seem to return indefinitely. They have no interest in being good faith editors. . (I'm usingCOI in the sense of specific interest in having a particular article , not contributing with a COI to WP generally) '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 01:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Another consideration is that COI editors are often in a better place to find sources to support an edit on the topic, given that they are connected to it. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 06:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::[[Broken windows theory]] applies to promotional articles because newbies justify their existence with [[WP:OSE]]. There's also cases where articles - they don't have to be spam, mind you - were created for [[Sales presentation|pitching to potential clients]] (who are not necessarily the subject of the article) or business development purposes. Even though these articles are not created explicitly for pay, they still need to be nuked - perhaps more urgently. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support option 2'''. The only way to rid ourselves of this menace is to deny the spammers their product. They are not here to improve Wikipedia and we shouldn't expend more than the bare minimum of time needed to dealing with them - they can just overwhelm us with cheap labor. AFD doesn't scale very well and many UPE articles are specifically created to frustrate the notability evaluation process (e.g. by [[WP:REFBOMB]]ing). Whether they are explicitly sockpuppets or not is irrelevant - many UPE operations are sophisticated enough to evade CU and/or farm out the actual page creations to low wage/third world/freelance meatpuppets with instructions on evading detection. Quarantine should be used when UPE is merely suspected. The analogy with copyright violations is correct - it is [[WP:CV#Addressing contributors|policy that contributions of repeat infringers can be presumed to be copyvios]] and removed indiscriminately. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' any version of this. I am as strongly opposed to undisclosed paid editing, and paid editing in general, as anyone. However, no version has been proposed that is Objective and Uncontestable. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Jo-Jo Eumerus. How many of you supporters are familiar with the big box at the top of the page? Look under ''Read this before proposing new criteria'' if you're not. This proposal is neither objective nor uncontestable, especially as it's quite plausible that an article potentially deletable under this proposed criterion is beneficial to Wikipedia. We shouldn't go deleting good content merely because the creator got paid to create it: we should delete it if the content's demonstrably bad or if the situation's ambiguous, but this proposal would have us delete all paid-edit content, even when it's demonstrably good. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Unless an editor ''discloses'' that they are a paid editor, how can it objectively be known that they are? <small>— [[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:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 03:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Content should be evaluated by its own merits, not those of its creator. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 06:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Thryduulf and Nyttend raise good points. It's impossible to quickly verify whether the article meets the proposed criteria. And if it's not quick, it's not speedy deletion. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*A wonderful, impractical dream. A criterion that, if it could be objectively and speedily enforced, would make Wikipedia a better place. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 05:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose both'''. As drafted, both proposals are overly broad, capturing work that have substantial contributions by others, weren't written while blocked, weren't written for pay, and combinations thereof. It couldn't work as an extension of G5, which is specifically for pages created in violation of a user's specific block w/o substantial contributions by others. A more narrower and objective CSD criteria could work, or some PROD or quasi-PROD process might be better. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 20:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Undeclared paid editing is not even agreed to be a deletion reason. The place for this discussion is [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Undeclared Paid Editor %28UPE%29 product]]; only if UPE AfDs consistently result in SNOW deleted should this be considered as a CSD. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Thryduulf and Nyttend are right again with this one. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as per [[WP:BITE]]. Some newcomers may not know about declaring paid editing. [[User:I know the best wiki|I know the best wiki]] ([[User talk:I know the best wiki|talk]]) 15:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf's valid point. It's literally impossible to tell whether the article was a COI creation, which would ruin the point of speedy deletion. --[[User:GN-z11|<span style="font-family: Engravers MT;color: firebrick">'''GN-z11'''</span>]] [[User talk:GN-z11|<sup>'''☎'''</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/GN-z11|<sup>'''★'''</sup>]] 18:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', mostly per Thryduulf, though I like SmokeyJoe's idea. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
===Alternative proposal (3)===
To remedy some of the opposers’ concerns, I propose that the following be added to the G5 bullet list in lieu of any of the above:
:In addition, because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by Wikimedia Foundation policy, articles created {{red|for pay}} by editors who have been indef-blocked for undisclosed paid editing, {{red|with no substantial edits by other users}}, are candidates for speedy deletion under G5.
(Changes from proposal 2 marked in red.) —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 21:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 21:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' because these conditions are impossible for a single admin reviewing a CSD nomination to determine. Also, it fails to address other problems noted above - principally lack of need and not being restricted to proven cases. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*It may be hard to tell if the article was created for pay, but if it is obvious, then this should be possible to enforce with a speedy deletion. However if other good standing editors have adopted the page or removed the speedy delete tag, then this should not be foreced, and AFD considered instead. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 02:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
**"It may be hard to tell" and "sometimes it's obvious" (without any indication of who gets to decide, using what criteria, or anything remotely objective) is exactly why this subjective assessment is has no business being anywhere near a CSD criterion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' as written, but would support if "with no substantial edits by other users" were added to keep it in line with the rest of G5. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 11:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</s>
:*This would already be a required step because it's part of the G5 requirements, but I have inserted it above for clarity. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 12:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' current version as my concerns above have been addressed. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 12:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''', although in practice, we won't ''know'' which articles have been written for pay. But I guess we'll assume the article about a company CEO was written for pay and the one about an obscure 18th century poet wasn't, and we'll get it right most of the time. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 11:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
**Sorry, but whether we "get it right most of the time" is unknowable and even if it were it wouldn't be good enough. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this too, though prefer proposal 2. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 18:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as above. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''', this one looks like has been ironed out enough. I think I would prefer a separate number for this per Bbb23's concern above, but I understand why it's bundled with G5. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 21:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*''Support''' along with proposals 1 & 2 (with preference reflected in the proposal number). Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as this is clear and can be decided by only examining a few pages (history and user log). [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
**How? Yes it's easy to tell whether the editor is indef blocked, and not difficult to tell whether there have been significant contributions from others but how do you propose to ''reliably and objectively'' tell whether any given article was created for pay? Note that simply suspecting that it might have been is insufficient. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 10:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Just leave G5 alone, it's fine as is for quickly cleaning up ban violations, which is what it's meant for. For suspected paid editors, make a proposal to modify G11, or propose a new criterion. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*:{{re|Ivanvector}} The idea here is that undisclosed paid editors are already "banned" by default. Therefore, wouldn't it be appropriate to use G5 to clean up these ban violations also? Remember, the proposal in this section applies only to contributions of editors who have already been blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and often those blocks are by checkusers. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*::Yes, that's a common view (that undisclosed paid editors are violating an implied ban) and one I share, but it's not universal, and so it doesn't meet the "objective" requirement for new criteria. For socks of editors who are already banned by a community process, G5 already applies. As a side note, we were explicitly warned in orientation that suspicion of commercial editing is ''not'' a valid rationale on its own for the use of Checkuser - if a user is Checkuser-blocked, you can presume it's not because of undisclosed paid editing but because of some violation of policy related to multiple account abuse. They don't go hand-in-hand as often as people like to think. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Better than the above but still too subjective per Thryduulf. If this does get consensus, it should be a new criterion not under G5, which is for very clear cut violations of the user's original block/ban. If this must be under G5, then it should be restricted to very clear cut cases where someone is blocked for socking (e.g. explicitly mentioned in the block, link to SPI, Checkuserblock) after their first account was blocked for UPE. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' as not objective. Instead, to move forwards on this, introduce a tracking category on UPE AfDs, to provide evidence on what normally happens. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
:: See [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Undeclared Paid Editor %28UPE%29 product]]. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per Thryduulf. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the person who originally started all this. I like this better than my option 2 in the section above. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Thryduulf again. This is closer, but it's not there yet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
===Another alternative (4) (or possibly, an addition) ===
''Articles written by UPE can be brought to AfD, and if the consensus is that they were written by a blocked UPE, this will be a sufficient reason for deletion, regardless of considerations of possible notability and promotionalism ''
::This way no one person gets to decide, and there is a possibility of making exceptions. The disadvantage of this is having a large number of inconclusive AfD debates, so I'm not sure of this. I'm suggesting it only as a possible alternative to see what people think. (And, of course, it is't actually just ''one'' person in Speedy. Good practice is for one person to nominate, and then a second person who is an admin to decide.)'''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:This sounds reasonable, but AFD would always have been an option. I suppose that the deletion policy is what gets changed by thgis proposal. We shouuld make it clear that in this case it is the UPE that is the only substantial contributor, to avoid the case where pre-existing articles get edited by the paid editor. (in which case ubndoing edits would be appropriate). [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 02:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Additional possibility: remove the word blocked. If we are going by consensus the consensus can decide. (There will be an additional proposal to revise blocking policy. We now often presume any upe is likely to have socked, butit would bemuch more straightforward for UPE should be stated explicitly as a reason for blocking. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
* AfD can delete any article for any reason per the consensus established in the AfD discussion. [[User:Thryduulf]] has provided a fundamental challenge. Who says ToU violation is a deletion reason? Did the WMF? Did editors decide? Links? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 05:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::We can decide. (though the discussion would have to take place at WP:Deletion Policy). We make our own policy. It would add to the list at [[WP:DEL-REASON]]. Though we ''can'' delete for any other reason also, reasons not on that list are in practice usually strongly challenged. Leaving it to individual AfDs would repeat this discussion each time, whether UPE is an acceptable reason. We need some uniformity of practice in dealing with COI contributors. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::: Wikipedians can decide, right. But not on this page. It is not even a [[WP:DEL-REASON]], so it is not even conceivable that it should be a CSD. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*Any article can be brought to AfD for any reason by any editor at any time. This proposal adds nothing to that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Yes reasonable. Helps with causes of a bunch of paid for articles by a single account. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 11:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Wrong forum''' this is not a proposal for speedy deletion so the discussion should be happening at an appropriate venue - presumably [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]]. However it is unnecessary as all you would be doing is adding a bullet point to [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion]] which duplicates existing points 1, 4, 6, 7, 13 and/or 14. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::of course it would need to be discussed at DelPolicy. And it I think ought to be viewed as a supplement to the discussion here which might use narrower criteria. For example, CSD would be blocked, AfD would be any UPE even if not yet blocked. The reasons given for deletion at DELPOLICY already overlap. It adds clarity to be specific. , whith something that can be quoted at the AfD. We do not want to add confusion to what many new users see as an already complicated and confusing process. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as above. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' AfD can choose to delete an article under existing policy for promotionalism. This just muddies the waters. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
:::AfD can only delete under promotionalism if it reaches the level that would justify a [[WP:G11]] deletion anyway. Paid Editing might cause the same problem, but it is '''not''' the same reasoning.
::::::actually, based on the last few years of decisions at AfD, Deletion for promotionalism it is interpreted more broadly. This is justified by [[WP:DEL4]], " Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content )" The CSD criterion for G11, [[WP:G11]] is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: ... This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION " The difference, as for all speedy criteria, is that is has to be unambiguous. Situations that are debatable need to be debated at AfD, and promotionalism there can be and is interpreted however the consensus decides. Many is the promotional page where I have declined G11, nominated for AfD as promotional, and seen deleted by consensus. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 17:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::'''Support with Bartlett's amendment, ''' - This is a different case to those above, and I think it is a reasonable one. It handles comments that it either isn't appropriate for a CSD standard time scale, or doesn't belong because it's too long for CSD (a somewhat tricky double argument!). Given the significant opposition primarily focused on being discussion in this forum, {{ping|DGG}}, closing this here, moving to Del Policy while both leaving a forwarding and pinging each participant in this proposal would be reasonable/wise. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 17:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::I agree with closing this here,. The discussion has moved on.'''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 17:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Wrong forum''' per above. UPE should obviously be a factor to consider at AFD that would militate towards deletion barring exceptionally good other factors (e.g. substantial, transformative contributions by others, very high quality material explicitly endorsed by other editors, etc.) but implementing changes to AFD is outside the scope of this page. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 21:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' in favor a restarting at [[WT:DEL]], should UPE be a [[WP:DEL#REASON]]? --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Barkeep49, et al. This isn't a CSD proposal so is off-topic here, and it's not necessary since AfD can already delete such pages as hopelessly promotional. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
== Update P2 proposed ==
Currently P2 says "Any portal based on a topic for which there is only a stub header article or fewer than three non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to present under the title of that portal."
However even WikiProject Portals has 20 articles as the minimum to support a portal, something that many other editors think is too low. We are now finding many portals that lack 20 articles created by various users. To save a lot of wasted MfD time let's move the 3 to 20 in this criteria. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 02:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', because speedy deletion is intended for content that blatantly violates CSD standards, and as presently worded, the criteria is sufficient. For example, a portal with nineteen selected articles could then be speedily deleted simply because it hasn't been updated to include new content. Makes it too easy to quickly throw away the work of other editors from simply counting articles, essentially qualifying deletion via bureaucratic bean counting. Per this "nineteen article" example, such and similar portal examples would be better discussed and assessed on a case-by-case basis at [[WP:MFD]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size: x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support, but prefer a threshold of 10 non-stub articles pending a wider consensus'''. I have some sympathy with North's "nineteen article" example, and setting the limit at half that gives plenty of room for the occasional lapse, while still satisfying Legacypac's well-justified concern that too much effort is being wasted on portals with 3–10 articles.
:However, that "nineteen article" example is problematic. The minimum of 20 is a target set by the create-squillions-of-pointless-portals brigade at [[WP:WPPORT]], and I believe that community consensus would set a radically higher threshold. Insofar as that threshold of 20 is upheld, it should be regarded as the absolute rock-bottom bare minimum for a portal to survive, so editors should be aware that creating a portal without a significantly higher number of articles is placing the portal at real risk of deletion if the numbers slip.
:So while, I'd refer ten, I'd support a threshold of 20 if other editors back it ... but either way, this proposal is just an intermediate step to ease the burden of cleaning up the flood of portalspam. It should all be revisited as part of a wider discussion on what size and number and type of portals the community will support. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 04:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per NorthAmerica. This would be a good reason to discuss the portal at MfD but the higher the number the greater the chance that there will be disagreement about whether an article does fall within a topic area or not so it needs discussion. Given that there is no draft space for portals and editors who dislike the idea of portals so much that they are desperately trying everything they can think of to get as many of them deleted as they humanly can, it is very important that we take extra care not to speedy delete something that would be better merged for example. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*This isn't unreasonable. It is, however, premature. We should first find a wider consensus on how many articles are truly needed to support a portal - and I strongly suspect it will be multiple orders of magnitude higher than what the WPPORT echo chamber would like - and only then set a CSD threshold at some percentage of that. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 12:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Not yet'''. The breadth threshold for portals is already being debated in several forums. I am disappointed that those discussions have not yet reached a conclusion, but producing yet another competing standard [https://xkcd.com/927/ would not help]. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*:20 is the number the Portal fans set a long time ago. Precious few topics on Wikipedia are notable enough to have a page yet are unreleated to less than four other pages. Therefore P2 is pretty much pointless as written. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 18:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*::{{replyto|Legacypac|CoolSkittle|BrownHairedGirl|Pythoncoder|Cryptic}} As [[user:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] notes below, it is not going to be possible for a single admin to ''objectively'' determine whether a threshold above a small number (certainly less than 10) is met. This means it is inherently unsuitable for speedy deletion. It would be a good metric for a deletion discussion though, but per [[user:Certes|Certes]] it is important that if we have a threshold that we have only one, so it should be discussed at a single appropriate venue (which is not this discussion). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]], I think you misunderstand the issues here.
*:::This discussion is about criteria for ''speedy deletion''. It is quite common (even routine) to have content guidelines which set thresholds higher than the speedy deletion criteria, so there is no reason why there should be only one criterion. All that matters is that the speedy criterion extends no higher than the lower limit of the general guideline. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 10:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*::::{{ec}} {{replyto|BrownHairedGirl}} I agree that two thresholds are common, but that's not my point. I was making two spearate points - First that many of the thresholds proposed here for speedy deletion (10, 20, etc) cannot be assessed objectively by a single admin and so cannot work as a speedy deletion criterion. Secondly I was pointing out that discussions of a non-CSD threshold (which some commenters seem to be unclear is different) should be discussed elsewhere. 10:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*::Paging through the list of portals-actually-deleted-as-P2 that I generated below, it's clear that even "3" has been entirely ignored in practice. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 10:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*:::{{replyto|Cryptic}} Do you mean that portals with more than three non-stub articles are being deleted or that ones with fewer are not being? If the criterion is being routinely abused then that deserves a separate discussion about how to resolve that - e.g. is it only one admin or multiple admins? If it's not being used, then we need to look at why (again probably a separate discussion). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*::::I meant the former, but the latter's probably true too. There hasn't been a year with more than 10 correct P2 speedies since 2007. Its original purpose - to prevent [[Portal:My meaningless little company and/or website]] - was obsolesced by the introduction of criterion G11. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 10:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with a threshold of 10 for now per BrownHairedGirl. [[User:CoolSkittle|<span style="background-color: blue; color: orange">CoolSkittle</span>]] ([[User talk:CoolSkittle|talk]]) 14:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support 10 or 20''' per BrownHairedGirl — if 20 is what the biggest portal fans (and thus people who want the lowest number of portals deleted) on this site want, it should definitely be the minimum standard for portals. This would help get rid of some of the useless nanoportals that aren't eligible for X3. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="border-radius:10px;background:blue"><span style="color:aqua"> python</span><span style="color:#ff0">coder </span></span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I think this could be quite difficult for an admin to quickly assess in practice. Take, for example, the late unlamented [[Portal:Spaghetti]]. In addition to an adequate main article, there's [[Spaghetti alla chitarra]], ~7 clear non-stubs under the subcat Dishes plus ~3 other borderline stub/start. I was surprised not to find that English school meal staple 'spag bog', but it's under [[Bolognese sauce]], which apparently traditionally should be cooked with flat pasta, but does talk about the spaghetti dish. Also [[Tomato sauce]], which has a classic spaghetti dish highlighted in the infobox. Also [[spaghetti sandwich]], mysteriously not categorised. There could well be many other uncategorised articles that relate to spaghetti that might be findable by search, or just by meandering through the main article & the other found articles. Then you've got peripheral (but categorised) content such as [[Spaghetti-tree hoax]], [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] & 3 related articles, plus 16 pages of metaphors relating to spaghetti. There are ingredients (well, flour). There might well be books on spaghetti, well-known manufacturers, chefs, restaurants &c. Then you've got the notion that articles in Italian might be translated or mined to expand the stubs. Does the admin press delete or not? Unless >=9/10 admins would agree, it isn't going to be viable as a speedy category. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 07:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
* Can anyone tell how many deletions happen under P2 in the last X months or years? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 07:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
** Not all that many. There's only been 449 deletions, ever, in the portal namespace that mentioned "p2" or "P2" in the log comment ([[quarry:query/34444]]). Maybe a handful more if you account for admins who don't mention the code in their deletion comment, but those are rare these days. A bunch less if you filter out the false positives ([[Portal:San Francisco Bay Area/Cities and Counties Intro]] mentions P2 only to say that's being declined as a reason, for example) and the plainly, blatantly invalid ones ([[Portal:Laser]], [[Portal:Disco]], [[Portal:Bon Jovi]], and about 60 subpages of [[Portal:Paleontology]] jumped out at me). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 09:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*The current P2 is essentially useless and unused, and could be abolished with little harm. In more than ten years of CSD patrol, I have not used it once. I can, however, imagine a good portal that navigates through only 10 pages and a gazillion images. While I support a very low bar for deletion of autogenerated crap portals, that is a different issue than the number of articles covered by a portal. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 10:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I like the effort to make P2 actually useable and would prefer an expansion of P2 over the X3 option that currently floating around. I'm also fine with 10—I could go either way. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 21:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support 10, 20 or any number up to 100'''. I'd also support expanding P2 to apply to ''semi-automatically created'' portals with fewer than 100 pages, or portals with fewer than 100 ''notable topics'' under their scope, if either suggestion would garner more support. This threshold is still tiny and the vast majority of useless portals we have would not fail it. Given how incredibly low readership is for portals, and given that Wikipedia is written for readers, there's no point in us hosting portals on topics with so few pages under their scope. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' (he/him) <sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]</sub></span> 22:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Bilory}} How on earth do you propose to quickly, reliably and objectively (all required) determine whether there are 10 "notable topics" (definition please) within a portal's scope? For example would [[Trolley pole]], [[Tunnelling shield]] and [[The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers]] be within the scope of a [[Portal:Railway infrastructure]]? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::No one has been arguing it is impossible to quickly, reliably and objectively deturmine if 3 related articles exist. 10 or 20 is just a slightly higher number. If you believe the entire CSD is unworkable and has been that way for years make that point instead. This CSD should be used to clear the most crappy narrow portals. If there are not 20 bird species in a family for the Portal, Portal fails the test. If a writer has a head article article and articles on two books, writer fails the test. It's not that hard. Most of us can count to 10 or 20 and the Admin who feels incapable of making the assessment can leave it for an Admin who is more capable. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Example: new [[Portal:Skunks]] which stinks. There are only 12 kinds of skunks so would fail P2=20. The 12 species are linked from the nav box and the portal and easy to count. The portal, complete with a contextless unlabeled chemical bond chart, adds nothing to [[skunks]], it is just a detour from the useful article. Even more clear cut, a portal on [[Western spotted skunk]] would have zero other articles and fail P2 as written now. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, it is almost always going to be easy to find (or not find) three articles that objectively fall within a portal's scope, however this is not the case infinitely and so a cut-off has to be drawn somewhere at a point that it will be possible to determine objectively in all cases. Taking your skunks example, there are 12 types of skunk, but there are also [[list of fictional skunks]], [[Enchantimals]], [[Pepé Le Pew]], [[Pogo (comic strip)]], [[Punky Skunk]], [[Stinkor]], [[Skunks as pets]], [[Mephitis (genus)]] and [[Brachyprotoma obtusata]], meaning there are 21 articles at least. Now you might argue that some of those shouldn't count - but that's the point, e.g. whether fictional skunks count as within the scope of a portal on Skunks is subjective (meaning the criteria fails the objectivity requirement). In this case though I would suggest that [[Portal:Skunks]] be merged into a [[Portal:Mephitidae]] or [[Portal:Musteloidea]] (meaning the criteria fails the incontestable requirement). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::This, I think, is the crux of the thing. Once you get past a limit of a few (say, for example, three), it becomes time consuming and subjective, which makes for a bad CSD criterion. Once something becomes slow, subjective, or complicated enough that the typical sysop might not be guaranteed to do the same thing every time, it's better to use a more deliberative process like XfD where these cases can be discussed. The problem here is not with P2, but rather with the recent spate of portal creation. We can deal with that without complicating P2. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 19:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::The portal links to [[:Category:Skunks]] and [[:Category:Fictional skunks]], which in total contain 31 articles. This is an objective criterion that could be used. And if a category doesn't exist for a topic then we certainly don't need a portal on it. <span class="nowrap">— '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' (he/him) <sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|('''talk''')]]</sub></span> 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::And [[Portal:Skunks]] shows no evidence of including fictional skunks in the scope so that is a big stretch. The lede article does not mention fictional skunks. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 21:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::You're making my point for me: There is no consensus whether the portal does or should include fictional skunks, therefore it is not objectively and uncontestably determinable how many articles are within the scope and so it is unsuitable for speedy deletion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' portals usually link to at least one category to establish the scope of the portal, so it should usually be fairly unambiguous how many articles are in scope. If there is no category then there aren't likely to be many articles in scope. The ambiguity argument doesn't seem to have prevented P2 from working up to now either. Three articles is far too small a scope for an effective portal and is below even the standard used by the relevant Wikiproject. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*:Sure, but the CSD criteria aren't designed to catch everything for deletion, only the most obvious/egregious/clear-cut cases. A3 or A7, for example, don't set a low a bar for an effective article because they don't define what makes a good article, just an obvious example of something that doesn't. Similarly, a portal relating to 4 or 11 or 21 articles may well be deleted just as so many articles that do no qualify for A3 or A7. Setting an overly strict standard to ensure the community has their say doesn't mean the criteria are ineffective, it's by design. At any rate, I'm open to the idea that three is too few to be make a valuable criterion, but I continue to think the real issue will be slowing down reviewers. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
*::Not only are categories useful for gauging the scope of portals, they are [[Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines#Required|required portal items]]. If there is no category, then the portal shouldn't have been created in the first place because it can't contain all the items required for a portal. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em">– [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]]</span> ([[User talk:Finnusertop|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Finnusertop|contribs]]) 16:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Amorymeltzer]] what reviewers? Do you mean portal creators? I'm happy with a low bar but obviously 1:1 Portal:Article is too low. 1:3 is also effectively meaningless. Many of the past P2 tags look like blank pages or tests so could have been speedy deleted G2 or other ways. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 00:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
::Sorry; I meant reviewers as in people reviewing the CSD itself aka sysops. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per Northamerica1000 and Thryduulf. I concur that increasing the availability of speedy deletion will be at the expense of the alternatives to deletion that can be considered at MfD. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose, but expand PROD to include portals''' so that these uncontroversial cases of deletion can be made via the PROD process. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist|talk]]) 01:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Northamerica1000, et al. Also, there is no evidence that MfD is failing to get the job done, including with mass nominations. Extant process is sufficient. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the group. 3 is a reasonable objective threshold. There is a significant range of grey area above that level in which portals are unlikely to be kept after a discussion to evaluate their merits, but each one should be evaluated in a discussion, not deleted or not deleted under the selective evaluation of individual administrators. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
== Mentioning the requirements for new criteria in an edit notice? ==
There are plenty of examples of people on this page proposing new criteria or commenting on proposals for new criteria who seem unfamiliar with the requirements (Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, Non-redundant) detailed in [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header|the page header]]. To help reduce this (especially for those who arrive via a link to a section), how about adding a slimmed down version of the header in an edit notice, linking to the header for full details?
Perhaps something like:
{{divbox|plain||
'''Before proposing or commenting on new or expanded criteria''' note that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be:
*'''Objective''': Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion.
*'''Uncontestable''': Almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus.
*'''Frequent''': If a situation arises only rarely, it's usually easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it at the normal venue.
*'''Nonredundant''': If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that.
''Note this is a summary of the requirements, see [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header]] for details.
}}
Although it might be possible to condense it still further - the point is to alert not overwhelm, and other improvements are almost certainly possible as well. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
* Suggest Speedy closing proposals that clearly fail the new criterion criteria, and Speedy close CSD proposals that are not even accepted reasons for deletion. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
** I wouldn't object to that in general, although in some cases they only need a slight tweak and in others speedy closing will be a lot of drama (especially I think anything related to UPE). I don't think that's incompatible with my suggestion though. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning here that I've just created a new shortcut to the header listing the the requirements: [[WP:NEWCSD]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*Fails #4, redundant to the header.{{pb}}I don't think it's a matter of not noticing the new-criteria criteria. (And if it is, the first step is to remove the irrelevancies distracting from it - we absolutely don't need a "don't delete WP:CSD, we copied some text out of it four years ago" box; we don't need the "be polite and sign your posts" box; and the archive lists doesn't need to be full-width.) What we've been seeing lately is A) legitimate disagreement over whether criteria meet NEWCSD, and B) a suicidal headlong rush to vote on everything. B exacerbates A, because there isn't time to hammer out the obvious amendments that make a proposal meet NEWCSD before some dolt's plastered it all over CENT and started a formal RFC, and then we suddenly have four competing proposals for people to vote against without even fully reading. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 14:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*:I should hope I'm not a dolt because you're making that statement as a general comment. ;) --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 14:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
*:The purpose is very much to complement the header, for people who don't see it and/or read it, that's why it explicitly summarises it and links to it for full details. It's very much not redundant to it. The excessive number of proposals being made (sometimes on the wrong page - e.g. the X3 proposal at AN) without understanding the requirements is why we need to make it more in-your-face. And just like when evaluating a page against the criteria, if there is good faith disagreement about whether a proposal meets the requirements for a new criterion it doesn't. If people disagree whether something is objective it clearly isn't. If people disagree whether everything that covered by the criterion should be deleted then it is not uncontestable. The "we copied text" box is needed for proper attribution - see [[WP:CWW]]. The archives box though could be made less prominent, but I'm not sure it would make that much difference. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Strongly support''' making such an editnotice. The vast majority of proposals at this page fail at least one of these obvious criteria, and it's a drain on editorial time. One of those "{{abbr|RtFM|read the f...riendly manual}}" things. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 16:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Support 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]