| Revision as of 00:10, 31 October 2006 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,576 edits →Comprehension check (G12): more comments← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:12, 30 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors60,904 edits Reverting edit(s) by THE ESPORTS PROFESSOR (talk) to rev. 1265551727 by Lowercase sigmabot III: Non-constructive edit (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}__NOINDEX__ | |||
| {{shortcut|]<br>]}} | |||
| {{/Header}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 89 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Aan}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{talk header|WT:CSD|search=yes}} | |||
| {{Copied | |||
| |from = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria | |||
| |from_oldid = 584487717 | |||
| |to = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion | |||
| |to_diff = 584576665 | |||
| |to_oldid = 584575352 | |||
| |date = 20:38, 4 December 2013 | |||
| |small = | |||
| }}{{Copied | |||
| | from = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion | |||
| | from_oldid = 749905429 | |||
| | to = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy | |||
| | to_diff = 749906249 | |||
| | date = 16 November 2016 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{hatnote|See also ] for discussions which took place in 2006-7 before it was redirected here.}} | |||
| == Template doc pages that have been converted == | |||
| == Read this before proposing new criteria == | |||
| <!-- Note: This is a standing instruction for the Talk page. When archiving old discussions off this page, please do ''not'' archive this section --> | |||
| There are two types of template /doc pages that have been sent to TfD and always deleted. Navigation templates that had their doc converted to {{tl|Navbox documentation}} and WikiProject banners that had their doc converted to the automatic one with {{para|DOC|auto}}. Can these be tagged with G6? Sending them to TfD really adds nothing to the process. ] (]) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Contributors frequently propose new criteria for speedy deletion. If you have a proposal to offer, please keep a few guidelines in mind: | |||
| :I've tagged such pages with ] before, giving a justification like "template uses {{tl|navdoc}} instead", and it's always worked fine. As long as the /doc page is just boilerplate (as opposed to substantial/unique to its template), I think it's clearly uncontroversial maintenance. ] (]) 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # The criterion should be '''objective''': an article that a reasonable person judges as fitting or not fitting the criterion should be similarly judged by other reasonable people. Often this requires making the rule very specific. An example of an unacceptably ''subjective'' criterion might be "an article about something unimportant." | |||
| :: Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests. ] ] 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # The criterion should be '''uncontestable''': it should be the case that ''almost all'' articles that can be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus. If a rule paves the path for deletions that will cause controversy, it probably needs to be restricted. In particular, don't propose a CSD in order to overrule ''keep'' votes that might otherwise occur in AfD. Don't forget that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect if not carefully worded. | |||
| :::I am also such an admin. ] (]) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # The criterion should '''arise frequently''': speedy deletion was created as a means of decreasing load on other deletion methods such as ] and ]. But these other methods are often more effective because they treat articles on a case-by-case basis and incorporate many viewpoints; CSD exchanges these advantages for the practical goal of expeditious, lightweight cleanup. If a situation arises rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and more fair to delete it via one of these other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible. | |||
| # The criterion should be '''nonredundant''': if an admin can accomplish the deletion using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. Only if a new rule covers articles that cannot be speedy deleted otherwise should it be considered. | |||
| ===New T-criteria proposal=== | |||
| If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page. | |||
| Based on the above, and the fact that despite multiple admins indicating that G6 shouldn't be used for /doc deletion in the Template space, I would like to propose that we add a new T-criteria specifically to fix this issue. It would be something along the lines of {{tq|T'''X''': documentation subpages that are no longer transcluded by the parent template}}. I'm happy to discuss wording and scope (or clarifications as to what constitutes "no longer used"), but from a point of initial consideration: | |||
| #Objective: yes, as a /doc is either transcluded by its parent template (or for whatever reason, ''any'' template) or it is not | |||
| #Uncontestable: the only situation where I could see an unused /doc needing to be kept is for cases of attribution (if it were copied to another /doc for example) but in those cases it should just be redirected anyway. At TFD they are 100% deleted. | |||
| #Frequent: I decline at least one per week, and TFD is rife with them. | |||
| #Nonredundant: As indicated in the discussion in the main section, we are misusing G6 to allow for deletion, which seems to be the only other criteria that people seem to want to chuck these under. | |||
| Thanks for the consideration. ] (]) 21:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 23:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ;Oft referenced pages | |||
| *Can this be made more general? Maybe "a template subpage not used by its parent, or another template"? With the understanding that Template:*/sandbox and Template:*/testcases are "used" despite not being transcluded. —] 23:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| *:Are there any other template subpages that are as frequently obsoleted, to the point of being objectively and uncontestably delete-worthy? ] (]) 23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| *::They seem to mostly be deleted with G6. ]. —] 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| *::: What I see in that list is almost exclusively ] (which some other admins did too apparently), to which this speedy deletion criterion as currently worded wouldn't apply because they were redirects not templates. Then there's ], ], expired editnotices, some stuff like ], and run-of-the-mill speedies under other criteria or other parts of G6. {{pb}} The POTD example brings up an interesting point - this concept of delegation of deletion authority isn't specific to template namespace, it can be seen at ], ], ] etc. {{pb}} '''Support''' as proposed anyway, though, I'm just bouncing some ideas off the wall. ] ] 00:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (edited 03:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)) | |||
| * ] (July 2005 proposal to expand WP:CSD) | |||
| *:Making a new objective criterion, dealing with the misuse of the catchall G6, more “general” seems to miss the point. | |||
| * ] (Summary of suggested changes as of November 2005) | |||
| *:You want to make unused template subpages speediable? Does “unused” mean “never used”? How frequently is “unused template subpage” the driving reason for deletion at <u>xfd</u>? ] (]) 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ], explanations of the reasons for each criterion | |||
| *::Wouldn't it be TfD, not MfD? ] (]) 01:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::: Yes. Changed to xfd. —-] (]) 07:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for /doc pages as proposed. '''Oppose''' anything else without a much more objective proposal than that suggest in the conversation above. ] (]) 00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. As one of the editors that tend to send them to TfD, I sometimes skip them just because of the extra hassle of combining multiple templates into one nomination to make life easier for everyone. These templates {{em|always}} get deleted and usually only one editor even cares to comment, which is expected, since no one cares and the newer doc is {{em|always}} better. ] (]) 07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I '''support''' the general concept (ideally as a more general thing, because it is a frequent-ish occurrence), and I want to propose some draft language. {{tqb|1='''T5. Unused template subpages'''{{pb}}This applies to unused ] of templates, such as ] subpages which are no longer used in favor of centralized documentation, /core subpages which are not called by the template itself, and old subpages of {{t|POTD protected}}. It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{t|T5-exempt}} . Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to ]. }} Wordsmithing welcome. <small>(Being <em>very</em> pedantic, what ENGVAR does WP:CSD use? Favor or favour? Centralized or centralised?)</small> <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:<small>it seems to use -or and -ize spellings. ] (]) 19:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:Wording looks good, and I don't think a T5-exemption template overcomplicates things any more than the G8-exemption template does. Worth checking back after a year or so and potentially trimming if it never ends up employed in practice. | |||
| *:<small>On the pedantry side of things, excepting the accessibility provisions the ] only applies to articles so there is no requirement or need for CSD to be internally consistent in its ENGVAR.</small> ] (]) 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the general concept, with the wording used by HouseBlaster. As a second choice, the original /doc-only proposal could work. Anything that moves well-defined routine operations outside of G6 is a positive. ] (] · ]) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Pre-RFC finalisation=== | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| Before I put this forward as a formal RFC, are there any final thoughts about the wording of the new criteria based on the discussion above? ] (]) 17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center"|]<br><small>]</small> | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| :Is centralised documentation intended as the only reason for lack of use that allows for speedy deletion or is it intended that all unused documentation subpages are eligible? I can see the current wording being read both ways. If the intent is the latter then rewording to {{tpq|...documentation subpages which are no longer used (e.g. due to centralized documentation)}} would solve the issue (as would just removing what I've put as a parenthetical). If the former is intended then someone better at wordsmithing than me will need to have at it. | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| :As for {{temp|T5-exempt}}, I'd say it would be beneficial as there are bound to be some pages that appear unused but actually aren't (something related to subst-only templates, or uncommon options in transitory templates) or which are needed for some other not-immediately-obvious purpose. ] (]) 19:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The most common reason I see for /doc pages nominated for G6 is when it is a "simple" /doc (maybe only containing {{t|collapsible option}} or similar) where the documentation gets moved to the main template and the /doc is no longer necessary. Other situations do include where multiple similar templates end up sharing a /doc, but usually what happens there is they are all redirected to that central /doc. ] (]) 21:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I like HouseBlaster's statement, but I wonder if the confusion comes because it's three long examples given after the initial statement; would it be better to say just simply {{tq|This applies to unused subpages of templates. Such pages include template documentation subpages...}} (i.e. split it into two sentences). That might reduce the confusion of it ''only'' being centralised /docs. ] (]) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That works. ] (]) 19:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What about using a bulleted list, like ]? {{tqb|'''T5. Unused template subpages'''{{pb}}This applies to unused ] of templates, such as:<ul><!-- {{tqb}} does not play nice with bullet point markup --><li>] subpages unused by the template itself</li><li>/core subpages which are not called by the template itself</li><li>Old subpages of {{t|POTD protected}}</li></ul>It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{t|T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to ].}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A+ ] (]) 12:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes. ] (]) 00:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: We should also probably include the current de-facto process of ] here as well. ] ] 00:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I seriously love that I can still learn about new processes on Misplaced Pages. Probably not the best from a ] perspective, but I still find it cool. {{tqb|'''T5. Unused template subpages'''{{pb}}This applies to unused ] of templates, such as:<ul><!-- {{tqb}} does not play nice with bullet point markup --><li>] subpages unused by the template itself</li><li>/core subpages which are not called by the template itself</li><li>Old subpages of {{t|POTD protected}}</li><li>Unnecessary subpages of {{t|Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used</li></ul>It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{t|T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to ].}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm. We currently process a ton of subtemplates at TFD after the deletion of the primary template (this is backward to the proposal and discussion here, so it's not the exact same case) as G8. Is there merit to spinning that out of G8? ] (]) 05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see the rationale, but I do agree it's the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't be opposed but I don't necessarily see it as being necessary to combine them. ] (]) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not seeing much benefit in moving something which is a core part of G8 out of that criterion. ] (]) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm a bit late to this party, but I submit for consideration, somewhat warily, Editnotices that are no longer used, typically because they have been blanked after sanctions expired or someone thought better of having an edit notice at all. We can use the "blanked by author" criterion for some of them, but most are blanked by people who did not create the notices. See ]. I will understand if including them would stretch the definition of this criterion, since they are not subpages, but they are in template space and tied to specific pages. – ] (]) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it would best to propose edit notices as a separate criterion, because as you say it's a stretch to include them with this one. My only query would be how frequent deletion of them is? ] (]) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == U3 (galleries in userspace) == | |||
| ::I mean, edit notices are all subpages of ], so it is not <em>that</em> much of a stretch to include them. However, I think to simplify things, we should have a separate discussion after the T5 discussion where we can consider whether it is frequent enough to merit a CSD and, if so, whether it should be T6 or a bullet point in T5.{{pb}}I will launch an RfC in 24 hours if there are no further comments/objections/feedback to ]. Best, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's OK with me to exclude it here. There are maybe about 100 to 200 blank editnotices right now, but I don't think anyone has been paying attention to them (many were blanked in 2021), so I'm guessing that deletion rates would be something in the low single digits per month. TFD is probably fine unless someone wants to go to the trouble of making a separate CSD criterion. – ] (]) 17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I was going to launch the RfC, but it turns out there is one additional thing we need to determine. ], while currently obsolete, used to apply to both templates and modules. I see no reason T5 should <em>not</em> apply to modules, given that modules are really templates which we have to put in a different namespace due to technical restrictions. I think adding {{tqq|subpages of ]}} to the list of things ineligible for T5 would solve any problems. Do others have thoughts? <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 00:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::From the perspective of someone largely ignorant about modules your proposal makes sense, but defer to those who know what they are talking about if they disagree. ] (]) 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Makes sense to me too as a module namespace regular. ] ] 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fine by me. ] (]) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages)=== | |||
| I'm slightly confused by this. Technically, this can be circumvented by someone having a list of images that they want to view as a gallery (even maintaining it off-wiki), and then, when they want to view the gallery (usually for maintenance purposes, eg. how good is the coverage in this particular area, can we use these images in a better way, etc), the user can temporarily stick the list up in the correct format, with the gallery tags around them. And then remove it again after a few hours, when the work is completed. Is this acceptable? I assume that U3 is aimed at permanent galleries, but even in the case where gallerisation is undone, the gallery version will still be available in the page history, so a user could save a page with a link to that version, and they could then look at the gallery whenever they wanted. An example of this, not in userspace, but in a WikiProject, is at ]. I would guess other WikiProjects have similar pages. The one that usually springs to mind is ]. ] 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|status=enacted|result= | |||
| *The issue is about ]. Simply put, copyright law does not allow us to use fair use images other than for illustrating the subject in question. That precludes gallery usage. ] 11:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is strong consensus to enact T5 as a new criterion for speedy deletion. Participants argued that this criterion would reduce the load on G6, and highlighted that deleted pages would be eligible for ]. Some editors noted that deleting administrators should take special care in identifying templates and modules orphaned in error, as well as when dealing with taxonomy-related pages. | |||
| ::Yes, I realise that. What I am talking about (and I wasn't very clear, admittedly), is the ''temporary'' use of Misplaced Pages to produce a gallery of fair use images for ''selection'' purposes (think of it like spreading out a set of photos on a table to pick the one you want to use). ie. To compare a range of potentially fair use images and select the one to use for a particular article. Actually, the selection criteria should probably be based more on which one is the "fairest" use, I guess, if that makes any sense (with the obligatory disclaimer of no free images being available). I was also making the point that galleries can be 'hidden' in a page history, and thus anyone who has the link to that version of the page, effectively has this gallery available to look at whenever they want. But with so many other skeletons rattling around in page histories, I guess this is not a major problem. ] 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*True, but that selection process does not appear to be the main usage of userspace galleries. If individual history items become really problematic, we can oversight them. ] 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dave Abrahams== | |||
| {{nac}} | |||
| Why is there a template by that name in ] ? --] 06:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :It's not there now. Seems to have been some kind of error. -]<sup>(])</sup> 06:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Should T5 be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion for templates and modules? <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very strange, it was for sure there yesterday and I refreshed the page at the time. --] 02:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Proposed text''' | |||
| == A7: Websites or web content? == | |||
| {{ivmbox|1= | |||
| '''T5. Unused template subpages''' | |||
| This applies to unused ] of templates, such as: | |||
| "simplified" blogs, podcasts, webcomic, etc. to "website", which could be seen as more restrictive (I'm thinking of, for example, non-notable videos that exist on sites like ] and that occasionally are promoted improperly here). A quick glance of this page and recent archives doesn't turn up discussion of this change, and {{tl|db-web}} still reflects the more expansive version. So I'm guessing that the restriction from "web content" to "website" wasn't fully intended. Am I missing something? — ]::] 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] subpages unused by the template itself | |||
| *That seems to not have been the intent. I've changed it back. ] 10:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| */core subpages which are not called by the template itself | |||
| **Thanks. For the record, I just similarly clarified {{tl|nn-warn}}. — ]::] 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Old subpages of {{t|POTD protected}} | |||
| *Unnecessary subpages of {{t|Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used | |||
| It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, subpages of ], as well as anything tagged with {{t|T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to ]. | |||
| }} | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. These are frequently and uncontroversially deleted at TFD. Some of them are also currently being shoved into G6, but reducing the load G6 bears is a feature of this proposal, not a bug. It meets all four NEWCSD criteria: | |||
| *#{{tick}} Objective: Either a subpage of a template is being used or it is not | |||
| *#{{tick}} Uncontestible: Always get deleted at TFD | |||
| *#{{tick}} Frequent: {{np|Primefac}} personally ] at least one erroneous G6 nomination per week | |||
| *#{{tick}} Nonredundant: They are certainly being tagged as G6 (see above), but G6 is ] and we should be decreasing the load it carries | |||
| *<li style="list-style:none;">I also think that using CSD has the benefit of making these deletions easier to overturn via ] if the use for the subpage later arises. Best, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</li><!--{{subst:i*}}--> | |||
| *:I have pinged all participants in the above discussion using {{tlx|bcc}} to avoid clogging the discussion.{{bcc|Chaotic Enby|Cryptic|Gonnym|Izno|Jlwoodwa|Jonesey95|Pppery|Primefac|SmokeyJoe|Thryduulf}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am going to be eating ] tonight. I forgot to include the exemption for subpages of ]; I have silently corrected it. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 01:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>Notified: ], ], ], and ]. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 03:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Are the two ''specific'' examples of POTD protected and Taxonomy truly necessary? —] 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I believe so, yes, because they are currently either deleted under G6 or G8 and the intention was to fold them into this as a template-specific reason. ] (]) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with or without the examples, per my comments in the pre-discussion. ] (]) 03:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' ] ] 04:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as long as people are careful. CSD nominators and deleting admins will need to be careful about pages orphaned through edits that should be reverted. In monitoring orphaned /doc subpages, I sometimes find templates where the {{tl|documentation}} portion has been deleted, typically in error. – ] (]) 05:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', anything that reduces the workload on G6 is good to have as a standalone criterion. Although I would be careful with taxonomy templates related to unused taxa, since old taxa can still be documented, or even attempt to make a comeback with varying level of success (like ]). ] (] · ]) 08:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''', seems logical and is being proposed by folks who know what they're doing. I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be ]ed upon request? ] </span>]] 08:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tpq|I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be WP:REFUNDed upon request?}} Yes, explicitly: {{tpq|editors are free to request undeletion}}. ] (]) 11:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above ] (]) 14:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Makes sense per above. Can’t see any reason why not. Cheers, ] (]) 04:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' As Jonesey said, nominators and admins need to take care that unnecessary deletions are not made. However, this is overall a good idea. — ] ⚓ ] 21:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. ] (]) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Fine both with or without examples; the NEWCSD analysis is on the nose. ] (]) 02:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' --] (]) 04:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| === Author removal === | |||
| T5 should allow removal by the creator of the page, right? Seems uncontroversial but needs to be added to the list. ] ] 05:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree on both counts. ] (]) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Oh A6, where art thou?== | |||
| ::Agreed; easy enough to tag something with {{t|t5-exempt}} in those cases. ] (]) 13:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree as well. ''']''' (]) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Circumventing a salted title: G4 or not? == | |||
| From ]: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material | |||
| It isn't very rare to see salted pages being recreated at variants of their original title, for instance ] today (as ] is fully protected from recreation). In these cases, I've seen G4 be used, although it might not necessarily fit if the content isn't the same as the deleted one. Does G4 still apply, should it be expanded/another criterion added, or is that something that shouldn't be in the purview of CSD? ] (] · ]) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see ] criterion A6)." | |||
| :G4 applies since there was an AFD on the same topic (assuming concerns haven't been addressed) but not simply because of the salt. ''']''' (]) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens. ] (] · ]) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] ] ] 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for both the previous proposal and the false positive list! ] (] · ]) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{ec}} I've G4-deleted the recreation and blocked the account (which was the same one that created the version at AfD) as spam/advertising-only. I came extremely close to ], but decided that step isn't quite warranted unless they evade the block and create another version at a different title. ] ] 17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I have a database report I look at every day or two that finds articles at titles that are a suffix of a salted title. There are ], but also a lot of stuff needing attention. And while G4 is my most common reaction, I have also created redirects or given name pages over obsolete saltings, started AfDs where I wasn't convinced enough that G4 applies, and done a lot of other stuff. ] ] 17:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.{{pb}}In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with). ] (] · ]) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD. ''']''' (]) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers to {{tq|sufficiently identical copies}}, something a non-admin patroller can't check, rather than any recreation not addressing concerns. ] (] · ]) 13:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with {{tl|salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies. ''']''' (]) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As far as I can tell, {{tl|salt}} on its own doesn't add any categories to a page. ] (]) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well that could be something useful to have. Given the specific title, I wonder if it should add the category itself or if there should be a similar maintenance template for "possible salt evasion" that would add it? ] (] · ]) 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sometimes there'll be an archived copy of a deleted page to compare against, for instance . Sometimes there'll be visible past versions in the edit filter log, for instance ]. In other cases, you can ask an admin. There's usually someone around on IRC or Discord who wouldn't mind assessing for G4ability. (Not me. Don't ask me. I hate doing G4s.) That said, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a template that says essentially "This page was created in apparent evasion of ] at {{param|1}}, and an admin is asked to assess whether it should a) be deleted under ] or b) treated as valid and moved to the correct title". I don't think that's something non-admins should be doing every time they see a recreated page, but when there's clear salt evasion I think it's reasonable to presume admin attention is needed. (All that said, obligatory plug for my essay ]. G4s are easier to trace when there's no salting to evade!) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title like ] before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics. ''']''' (]) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence at ] saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruption ''there''. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —] 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The issue is that normal ] requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name like ] or ], to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: And, of course, ]. The protecting admin for both of your examples is no longer an admin, so you should be free to unsalt them. ] ] 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::To clean up old SALTing, <u>where there’s any doubt</u> you should go to ]. True, you should ask the deleting admin first, but the text would be near identical in both places, should the old admin not answer or you not agree with their answer. | |||
| ::::::::::Do this a couple of dozen times, and then talk about the need for streamlining the process. ] (]) 04:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't think admins need to ask at RFUP before they unsalt pages. ] (]) 04:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Except where stated otherwise in policy, any reversion of an admin action is governed by ]. The way that policy is usually interpreted, that means that if the reversion is because of a clear change in circumstance, it can be done unilaterally; I did that with {{-r|Willy on Wheels}}, the relevant change there having been the emergence of a suitable redirect target. But if it's because some admin thinks the title just doesn't need to be protected anymore, then RAAA's expectation of discussion applies (if the protecting admin is still active). ] and ] might cover some common-sense cases, but wouldn't apply to a systematic effort. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agree with your essay! For the case where we already have a salted title and there is possible of salt evasion, I made a prototype template at {{]}} based on your wording (and the design of {{tl|Salt}}), happy to hear any feedback on whether it should be implemented! (presumably, with a corresponding tracking category) ] (] · ]) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Adding the "possible salt evasion" template === | |||
| A small fix seems to be in order. ] 18:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Following the above discussion, I have made a prototype for a template alerting administrators of possible salt evasion, which is currently at {{]}}. What do we think about moving this to templatespace, with a corresponding tracking category, and adding a bullet point to ] mentioning its existence? ] (] · ]) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I fixed it over there, it now points to G10. --] <small>]</small> 18:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's redundant to {{tl|salt}}. Just give it its parameters (which you should always be doing anyway). —] 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not really, {{tl|salt}} is to ask for a page to be salted, while this would be to note evasion from an already salted title. Also, {{tl|salt}} does not produce categories (as it is meant to be used alongside G4), while this would be to alert admins that they should check if it might be a G4 (as non-admins cannot see it). ] (] · ]) 17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == A7 and groups of people == | |||
| Please excuse me for a moment while I engage in utterly useless pedantry, to no real purpose other than my own self-amusement. | |||
| ] is applicable to "people". Is there any reason why it has to be a single person, rather than a group of people?--] (]) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The word "wherefore" actually means "why", not "where". "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" is actually asking "Why are you a Montague, and not some schmoe my family isn't feuding with?" | |||
| :Well, no. Changing it from a single person to "persons" was ] (linked discussion ]), about half a year after it was first introduced. The last vestige of "groups" was removed in ], which was labeled a revert and a clarification but was neither. —] 01:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You ''do'' have a way with words. So, just to be clear, A7 would therefore apply to clans and tribes, right?--] (]) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see why not. —] 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks.--] (]) 01:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC on interpretation of G11 == | |||
| Having said that, I use the word "wherefore" as a synonym for "where" with alarming frequency myself. | |||
| See ]. ] ] 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Anyhow, now you know. And knowing is some fraction of the battle. Go Joe. | |||
| :I think you ought to sign your proposal.--] (]) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I feel like policy RFCs shouldn't be about who started them, and ] says "''Sign the statement with either ] (name, time and date) or ] (just the time and date). ] ] 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| We return you now to your regularly scheduled policy talk page. | |||
| :::Didn't know that - shows you how often I start RfCs...never. How about publicizing it at ]? I wouldn't have known about it except I had the CSD Talk page on my watchlist because of a question I recently asked. Sounds like the RfC affects admins a fair amount.--] (]) 22:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| All the best,<br> | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. It is gratifying to see that ;-) | |||
| I see that even when you leave the Barrens, you never REALLY leave the Barrens. Kind of a touch the devil type of thing. ] 22:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Oops. I stand corrected. ] 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Just to clarify - CSD U1 == | |||
| User talk pages aren't speediable per CSD U1, right? I'm seeing this a lot lately (and I always decline the deletion), but maybe I'm wrong? Perhaps the language needs to be clarified. -- ] 13:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : It depends. The foundation does recognize a limited ]. On the other hand, if the user's talk page includes extensive documentation of vandalism warnings, we almost always perserve those as evidence. Even blanking those pages can be considered abusive. Can you give some specific examples that you found problematic? ] <small>]</small> 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, I'm all about right to vanish, but I don't think these are associated with that. Here are a few ones I've noticed: ], ]... uh, I'm sure there are more but it's hard for me to dig through my contributions. I'm discounting db tags left by users other than the owner of the talk page, which comes up more frequently. -- ] 14:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I would never delete (or even wipe) an anon page. If the user is upset by the comments left there, tell him/her to create an ID and sign in. They'll never need to see the comments on the anon page again. In fact, it says just that in the default text at the top of every anon talk page.<br> ] is a more difficult case. I can find no evidence that the user intends to leave the project. The user also an apparent death threat at the top of his/her own page, making me suspicious of the user's commitment to the project. If the user wants to turn over a new leaf, I'd recommend allowing him/her to archive the page into page history (that is, blank the page but do so with an explicit "archiving" comment so that others can find the old comments if necessary). There is, however, no easy answer. Just use your best judgment and continue to ask for help from other experienced editors when appropriate. Thanks for your help patroling these requests. ] <small>]</small> 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Kent class cruiser/Temp == | |||
| Hello. A quick question. ] has already been suggested for speedy deletion, but was changed to a merge and later a redirect. However, I really doubt anyone would ever type that in a search box, and the history content is made of mostly clean up stuff. Could the article be deleted under G6? I kind of don't like having that article in my watchlist, appearing from time to time. Thanks. -- ] 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. —]→] • 00:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: And now undone. No, that did not qualify under the "housekeeping" criterion. We have an obligation to track all the attribution of all contributions under the conditions of GFDL. You may consider all those changes to be "mostly clean up stuff" and I may even agree with that judgment call but that does not relieve Misplaced Pages from the obligations of GFDL. Making the judgment call about whether those obligations have been met is beyond the scope of CSD. <br>Redirects are cheap. This particular redirect does no apparent harm. If there is a pattern of abuse, the redirect can be protected but I see no such pattern since the page was turned into a redirect. ] <small>]</small> 12:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, the temp page was never merged, its information is redundant, and it shows up as the first result for a search for "Kent cruiser". —]→] • 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just wondering, with that kind of thought, ] is completely illegal. -- ] 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Inappropriate content can be deleted. It is content that is retained that must be fully attributable under the GFDL. But that is also problematic, as people often do cut-and-paste copying without thinking about the consequences. An interesting exercise is to sit down with an article like ] and try and work out who contributed which bit. Sometimes a piece of text that appears to have been contributed by User Y, was in fact written by User X in another article, and copied and pasted into the article by User Y. Technically GFDL has been satisfied for User Y, but GFDL has not been satisfied for User X. User X's writing has been mercilesly edited and redistributed, but the attribution to User X has been lost. Happens a lot, unfortunately. ] 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: According to a comment on the temp page's edit history (edit summary on 14 Oct), the contents were merged. I have no reason to distrust that comment but if you have evidence to the contrary, that could change things. As to whether this line of logic makes the AFD process illegal, I mostly disagree. The presumption of AFD is that the content is irredeemable and that presumably it would not have been moved to or used in any other article before deletion. As Carcharoth says, some may fall through the cracks but we try not to let that happen. If we discover a situation where that did happen, there is a process to allow a history-only undeletion to satisfy the requirements of GFDL. ] <small>]</small> 04:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Quick reference (I8 & I9) == | |||
| The quick reference at ] lists "I8: Attack Images" and "I9: Identical on Commons" while there is no longer an I9 at here. We should probably change one or the other so they coincide. Why didn't we leave I8 as (This criterion has been superseded by G10 and is kept for historical reasons.) and keep I9 at I9, as we did with A6? Hope this makes sense, ]+] 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Disclaimer templates == | |||
| ] says, "When spotted, such templates tend to be speedily deleted because they're similar to templates we've debated and deleted in the past." However, the only thing CSD says about templates is, "divisive and inflammatory". Are disclaimer templates considered divisive and inflammatory? If so, perhaps that could be clarified. Otherwise, maybe "disclaimer template" should be added to CSD. I realize that NDT is merely a guideline, but it seems silly to go through a prod or TfD discussion when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, I don't feel comfortable adding db to ] without a clear CSD. Am I being overly cautious? The only argument I can think of against adding "disclaimer template" as a CSD is that it may not be obvious whether a given template is a disclaimer template, and that strikes me as unlikely. ] <sub>]</sub> 04:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a broad application of CSD:G4. Non-ideal, but we'll live with it I suspect. ] (]) 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course! I didn't even think of searching through the general criteria for one that might apply. I feel very silly now. Thanks! :) ] <sub>]</sub> 06:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I7 == | |||
| Can a better example be provided for I7 please? It's not clear enough to me what is covered by it. Thanks. ] <nowiki>||</nowiki> ] <nowiki>||</nowiki> 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == G12: 48 hour requirement eliminated? == | |||
| Confirm this for me, folks. Has it been eliminated? - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think I tracked the change to by Jimbo Wales. Not sure why the 48-hour requirement was eliminated here, as the reasoning is pretty clear that this 48 hour requirement is needed to avoid the following: (1) Misplaced Pages article is created; (2) Some time later (usually more than 48 hours) a random website copies Misplaced Pages article without permission and claims copyright on it; (3) Someone notices that the Misplaced Pages article and the website have the same text and assumes that someone copied the website into Misplaced Pages and slaps a "copyvio" notice on the Misplaced Pages page; (4) A genuine Misplaced Pages article gets speedy deleted by an admin who doesn't bother to investigate. | |||
| :I think this is why the 48-hour requirement was added. In cases where more than 48 hours have elapsed, a more thorough investigation is needed by the admin who tries to sort out what is going on. I know some people will be reluctant to change things here, but I think this change should have been explained before being implemented. Does anyone know the best way to get a response from Jimbo Wales about this? ] 00:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a serious diff! Thanks. I Jimbo to clarify. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Basically, we must tag articles with {{tl|db-copyvio}} instead of sending them to ]. That kind of makes sense, at least for me. CP usually has an important backlog. -- ] 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So can we be sure that all the admins cleaning up the CSD categories, or any future admin who joins in, is aware of the possibility that you need to ''assess'' a copyvio and not just hit "delete" without thinking after someone else tags it as "blatant copyvio"? And are all those admins aware that copying can occur ''both'' ways? I realise that some articles really are blatant copyvios, but people have to realise that "blatant" does not mean "identical text". It means that the style is different to that of Misplaced Pages, and the Misplaced Pages article usually hasn't been wikified. The key is to look at the website and think: ''"does that look like a copy of a Misplaced Pages article?"'' I'd be happy if that proviso was added to G12. ] 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't get this argument entirely. If someone copies and pastes an article from Encyclopedia Brittanica, adds a few wikilinks (wikifying it), then it's no longer a blatent copyvio? An admin closing a huge backlog from the copyright problems list is more able to assess whether something's a copyvio than an admin doing CSD? I don't doubt that admins make some mistakes, but that's inherent in any system and we should just deal with the mistakes as they happen, since the only way to truly avoid mistakes is to not delete copyvios at all. Which obviously is not a good idea. --] 12:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I did say "''usually'' hasn't been wikified" (emphasis added). And I am talking about the need to assess the website the Misplaced Pages article has supposedly been copied from. If it is something like EB, then obviously it is extremely unlikely that they copied us. But the "blatent" bit needs a logical step of ''"did we copy them, or did they copy us"''. That is the key point which needs to be put in. Ignore what I said about wikilinks. You are right, that distracts from the key point. ] 20:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree, in as much as admins shouldn't just delete blindly because the text in the Misplaced Pages article exists on some other random server. Admins should always check to make sure it's not actually the other server that's copying from Misplaced Pages. --] 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's worth adding something to the criteria to tell admins to pay particular attemption to the possibility that the Misplaced Pages article and the other one may be identical but the original is the Misplaced Pages one. I'd also add enforcing pasting the url of the other article in the delete summary, so that known mirrors can be easily spotted. ], ], ] 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've added something about copyvio working both ways. I agree that pasting the URL in the delete summary is a good idea, but I'll leave you to put that in, as that might be more controversial (trying to enforce correct use of edit summaries is a bit of a nightmare). ] 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I actually did ask Jimbo about the 48-hour issue; my understanding was that the 48-hour part of the rule was to prevent mirrors from being mistaken for a copyvio source. His response was interesting: basically, that we should stop worrying so much about deleting stuff that could remain, because it should be no big deal. Better to err on the side of deletion when dealing with copyvios; mistakes can always be undone. Here's the diff: . ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't realise the 48-hour thing and the "maybe they copied it from us" thing were different. The 'undeletion is always possible' is fine, as long as people remember that this requires someone to actually review the deletions. I suspect that many deletions never get looked at again, as only a small pool of Misplaced Pages readers (admins) can actually see deleted content. And the point about putting an URL in the deletion summary to allow checking of the website, is a very important one. Makes it easier for those people who do double-check such deletions. And I might as well ask here a question I asked somewhere else: is there a list of all deletions performed? I know there is the deletion log, but can anyone put an overall figure to the total number of pages ever deleted, and how many stay deleted, and how many are deleted for a specific reason? (ie. how many as patent nonsense, how many as copyvios, etc.) I understand that pages can be recreated, but unless people remember to check the deletion log before creating a page, I don't think it is obvious when you are recreating something. ] 10:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This diff expanded G12 in a number of very serious ways that makes it no longer objective and prone to error. Why would the author have provided a statement of permission or fair use if no one has asked them to? Our existing processes give authors a chance to defend the source of the article content, and have often caught cases that were not actually copyvios - Deletion Review is not sufficient to deal with articles created by inexperienced users who don't know where their article disappeared to. As long as we have OCILLA there is no pressing need to delete these as quickly as possible. I strongly oppose this change. ] 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''As long as the creator is notified'', they are able to establish that they have permission to use the text, which will be restored. Only, in the mean time, the article will not be a likely copyright infringement sitting on the public site. —]→] • 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the larger question is whether we want to err on the side of including copyvios/plagiarism, or on deleting stuff people actually had the right to copy and paste. Both are correctable, but I think the former does a lot more damage to our quality and reputation. --] 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Shouldn't this be transcluded onto the page so that users and admins can easily place it on their user pages for quick reference? Like, ] or ]? ] 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm going to be ''']''' and change it. ] 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == my recent G12 change == | |||
| I just changed: | |||
| :''The page does not have substantial edits by multiple users and there are no non-infringing revisions in the page history worth saving.'' | |||
| to | |||
| :''The page does not have substantial non-copyvio content in the page history worth saving.'' | |||
| The earlier verstion seemed a bit vague, and could be taken to mean that if a copyvio has been rewritten a bit, maybe moved around, wikified, a typo fixed, that it's not a copyvio anymore. Copyvio content should be purged from the page history if possible. However, with pre-existing or older articles, usually what was copy and pasted has had new introductions added, and otherwise substantial new content written around it. So rather than delete the whole thing, I think we need to clarify that practice is to delete the copyvio but leave the rest, if it can stand on its own as an article (even if it's just a short stub). | |||
| If nothing else, I think the new wording is more clear but still has the same meaning. --] 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, this should be that no previous version meets ''any'' of the csd (including g12 but not limited to). But changing in that sense would probably be too pedantic. ], ], ] 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The purpose of it was to prevent the deletion of articles that were created organically on the wiki. Also, substantial is too vague a word in relation to "content" and many articles are going to get deleted when a revert would be more appropriate. —]→] • 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :So, if the parameter is to be "exactly what is meant" then it would be something like "the article was clearly not created organically on the wiki" and if the parameter is to be "what they should be checking" then the multiple users is good, and perhaps even more specific instructions. Many admins really have no idea how to check a page. —]→] • 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you're talking about. Your recent edit to what I was working on looks good, removing redundancy and all, but the added rule "The infringement was introduced at once by a single person; it was not developed organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Misplaced Pages mirrors." seems like instruction creep. If it's a copyvio, obviously the original uploader to WP copied it without permission, not the other way around. Admins make mistakes but I doubt any of us actually think it's a copyvio on Misplaced Pages if another site copies us without permission. --] 17:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is to help identify whether the website copied it from Misplaced Pages. Copyvios on Misplaced Pages are invariably from a single person adding it (except for some rare hypothetical possibilities), so the first part ("introduced at once...") is how that is checked for while the second part ("developed organically...") is the actual specific reason why that is checked for. This was the purpose of the 48 hour requirement and the purpose of the "not have substantial edits by multiple users" wording. —]→] • 20:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But this can give the false impression that we should keep a copyvio if it's been rewritten slightly (by multiple editors, developed organically, etc). That's not good. Something either is a copyvio or it isn't... admins are sometimes going to make mistakes. I don't think we're going to eliminate human error by just adding more and more potentially confusing rules. Admins should determine if something is a copyvio, that's part of deleting a copyvio. --] 20:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The parameter applies if the infringing text was ''introduced'' en masse. Perhaps "developed" could be changed to "created", but "there was some on-wiki development" is not the same as "created on wiki". —]→] • 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{]}} automatically places pages into ]. Since copyright violations are just as big a concern, would it be a good idea to do the same kind of thing with {{]}}? I suspect this could be useful in a few different ways, assuming ] is itself useful. -- ] (]) 04:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It might even be useful if the cat sortkey in ] was a letter representing the deletion criterion rather than the name of the page; that way it would be possible to tell which db-tag had been used from the CAT:CSD page. --] 08:56, 25 October 2006 (]]]) | |||
| ::I don't like that idea much. In practice, most of the speedy deletions are only in a couple of the categories. I like the list being alphabetical; the breaks in it help me keep my place. I do like the idea, though, of giving every CSD its own category, so those who want to browse by category could do so. I especially like that this might help us create ], because most such pages are bad speedy tags. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That sounds like it could have the risk of causing admins to ignore a lot of delete requests. It's true that a lot of them are spurious, but I still use {{]}} myself and I think I know how to use the tags (in ''most'' cases; I can go dig up some examples otherwise if I'm on trial here). I'd rather make categories that underline the urgency of things – this seems like it would diminish importance.<br />It would be an easy thing to set up and I kind of support it, but I think it would be "abused". Do the existing prefab db-* templates really cover all the necessary bases? That's the main question for me. -- ] (]) 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to go ahead and give this category a test run. I also notice the controversial G11 has spawned ], and there's one for userboxes I hadn't noticed before, so this seems like a pretty logical addition and an uncontroversial one as long as it doesn't spur the assembly of a group of Internet lawyers who sit on the category page clicking refresh all day. Or... something. -- ] (]) 16:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This may be a good idea not because they be urgent, but because they require a different sort of examination than the others and would be helpful to analyze what pages are being tagged. —]→] • 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I do not care if subcategories are created, so long as the articles all still appear in the main category. When you create subcategories, it is much easier for stuff to be overlooked. Something to let us know when an article has been in tagged for a long time might also be good, but it would be nice to do it without having to split the articles up by the day they were tagged, though. -- ] 08:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Last time I checked, the db-attack template placed the page both in CAT:CSD and the attack page subcategory; presumably it's so that people could clear out the evil/mean attack pages first, if the category is busting at the seams. I agree that any other examples of this should double-categorize. -- '']']'' 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What's the deal with the educational and non-commercial license speedy candidates? == | |||
| There are a bunch of images tagged for speedy deletion because they use an "educational and non-commercial only" license. The strange thing is that these images were recently uploaded and they have no other edits to them besides the upload. I went to the upload page and, incredibly, there is an option for educational and non-commercial only, although is under the invalid heading. I'm guessing that choosing that option and then uploading the image automatically puts the picture in the speedy deletion category. This is bizarre, to me. Why do we let people upload pictures under that license? The only thing that I can guess is that it is so they do not choose a different license, and this way allows the images to be automatically tagged for deletion (putting the license under the invalid heading interferes with this plan, though, since people may chose a different one because of it). However, it gives people the impression license is okay, if they do not notice or do not understand the "invalid" in the menu and do not scroll down on the image page to see the speedy deletion notice (even if they do scroll down, there is a good chance it will confuse the hell out of them since the license is a choice on the upload page). Also, even if they do notice and understand the "invalid", they might think that it is a mistake since the upload still works. | |||
| Another crazy thing is the extra work that is created for admins who do speedy deletions. Even if you want to use this confusing system, you could just have the images deleted automatically by a bot, with or without a delay. The images should be in a separate category, too, so they do not clog up the main one. | |||
| There is also a much simpler system. You could have the license still be an option, but when the person tries to upload the image, it does not work and an error message explains that such images are not allowed and has a link for more information. The error message could show up on the upload page or the browser could be redirected to an error page. Finally, you could put an explicit notice on the upload page about not being able to use images with that license with a link for more information. -- ] 09:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Unfortunately, if you do that, people will just choose a different and inaccurate licence, like public domain or GFDL. ] (]) 09:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which suggestion(s) are you referring to? -- ] 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The suggestion of blocking the upload if an invalid licence is chosen. Many people just want the picture in there and they will go back and choose another licence until they find one which will let them upload it. ] (]) 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I brought this up on ] a month ago; I understand what people are saying about people using illegitimate licenses if they're stymied, but it doesn't make ANY sense to put the invalid licenses first on the drop-down list. We're often tired of long EULA pages and instruction sheets, and the earlier something is on a list, the more likely we are to pick it IMO. Put these at the bottom and you'll cut at least some of the problem, since a true fix would require software changes. Some people actually think our upload server is not working right because their image keeps disappearing. -- '']']'' 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *No, this is exactly what we need. Having those tags at the top as "trap" tags makes it likely that users who don't understand our copyright policies will pick one of them, and the image can properly be deleted. If choosing an invalid licence brought up an error, then the user would just change at random until something comes up; if we put them at the bottom, it reduces drastically the chance of unlicensed or unfree images being caught; and if we remove them entirely people just pick a completely unrealistic free licence and it never gets found at all. See ] for more on this subject. ] (]) 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this copyvio? == | |||
| Hi, I'm want to put <nowiki>{{db-copyvio}}</nowiki> to this page: ], because the subject is copyrighted product name and all of its sources are taken from here: . Is this a blatant copyvio? I want to ask first, because this is my first time to put an article into speedy deletion and usually I'm not a deletionist. Thanks in advance. — ] (]) — 15:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, nowhere close. Names of products are not copyrighted: they may have ], but trademarks can be freely used as long as it's not in a disparaging way, or in a way that attempts to pass one product off as another. And it doesn't matter where the sources come from as much as whether or not the article is a direct copy of information found elsewhere. I actually don't see anything wrong with that page, I think it shouldn't be deleted for this reason, nor for any other reason. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay then, you're the expert. ;-) — ] (]) — 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| One of the key parts of a copyvio is that the text is ''copied''. —]→] • 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey, would it be a good idea to add to the bottom of the {{]}} template, "Please consider adding <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>? This would go on the user talk page and would be a strong deterrent to these attack pages. Take a look at the template.] 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I added {{tl|TestTemplatesNotice}} to the template, which I believe covers what you're asking for. ] 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Er, what does the template say?] 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it should be added in. But I generally indefblock people for creating attack pages anyway. It's a pretty bad sort of harassment.--]<sup>]</sup> 05:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == G12 and ] are inconsistent with each other == | |||
| I just noticed that while the criteria in ] require only | |||
| <blockquote>Blatant copyright infringement which meets these parameters: | |||
| * Material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Misplaced Pages; | |||
| * There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving. | |||
| * The infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Misplaced Pages mirrors. | |||
| * Uploader does not assert permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable;</blockquote> | |||
| the corresponding section in ] says: | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="padding-left:1em"|'''Blatant copyright infringements of commercial sources may now be "]"''' | |||
| If an ''article'' and ''all'' its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (directly engaged in making money from the content) and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be ]. | |||
| After notifying the uploading editor, add | |||
| :'''{{]|url=''url of source''}}''' | |||
| An ] will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance. | |||
| |} | |||
| Clearly these are out of sync, in that the WP:CP version requires also the the material be "copied from the website of a commercial content provider (directly engaged in making money from the content)", but that is not in G12. My memory of how copyvio-speedys evolved is hazy, and I can't seem to find the right diffs, but wasn't it the case that the commercial content provider was originally part of G12, and then dropped? If so, the language over at WP:CP should probably be updated. Or do I have this wrong? --] 05:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The commercial content provision was changed a long time ago. I have updated ]. —]→] • 05:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :See Jimbo's diff here , and this seems to be in line with we've been hearing from Brad and Danny. --] 05:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks to you both! I wanted a reality check before just changing ] myself. Best, --] 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == G11 spam? == | |||
| I'm just wondering if some user posts his resume a) as a main space article or b) as his userpage would it be speedily deletable under CSD G11? ] 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In the past, we've userfied such pages when people posted them in the mainspace. -]<sup>(])</sup> 07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really think we should be a resume service. Delete it through A7 if it's really just a generic resume of some guy trying to get a job. But if it's more of an official resume type thing of someone with notable accomplishments, it really just needs style editting, unless they don't meet ]. --] 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If a résumé is posted in the main article space, it should be speedily deleted as G11. If its in user space, it should be removed (with a warning for the editor). ] notes that "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Misplaced Pages" shouldn't be in a user's space. There's also a quote there from Jimbo that says "... using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea..." I suppose a résumé ''could'' be considered campaigning for someone, I suppose, although the quote from Jimbo is taken a bit of context in this case. ] 19:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a practical matter, I think userfying stuff like that is a good example of harm reduction, in that it is less likely to be re-created in article space, esp. by a confused user (who does not understand the distinction). That cuts down on the time wasted in further deletions, warnings, etc. If the user goes on to become a real editor, they'll probably fix their page at some point. And if not, and they don't do any more editing, the page can be deleted later as an abandoned uer page. --] 20:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you want to be practical, nip such things in the bud by deleting them so users don't get the wrong idea and start posting resumes en masse, explaining enough to the user so they don't do it again. To do otherwise invites (by precedent) further and further deviation from what's acceptable behaviour and dilutes the project's focus. --] 13:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == {{]}} parameter == | |||
| Any objections to adding an optional XFD discussion link parameter to {{]}} (an example is ])? Apologies if this has been discussed before – I didn't find such a conversation in a quick search. -- ] (]) 03:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted content recreated in userspace == | |||
| The policy on recreation of deleted material currently reads as follows (emphasis mine): | |||
| :'''Recreation of deleted material.''' A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy ''or was recreated in the user space''. | |||
| What is the rationale for allowing users to keep copies of deleted articles in userspace? I can see a few possibilities for abuse here. For example, say someone creates a vanity article for a company with the hope of promoting it on their website ("Look how famous I am! I'm on Misplaced Pages!") or using it to boost their search engine ranking for a particular search term. (As we know, Google tends to rank Misplaced Pages articles quite highly, and Misplaced Pages is mirrored extensively, increasing the chances that the vanity article will come up in a web search.) The article gets deleted, but a Misplaced Pages user (possibly with an interest in the company) makes an identical copy as a user subpage. Therefore the page will continue to fulfulling its original vanity purpose: it will continue to be mirrored and indexed by search engines, and it will continue to be linked from the company's website (fooling a significant portion of Internet users who don't know the difference between mainspace and userspace). —] 06:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Userspace undeletion may be allowed for proper transwikiing, examining the contents of deleted articles that possibly should not have or a space where the author can address the concerns raised in the deletion debate. See ]. ] 08:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, I can actually see this being useful. If a topic is non-notable, it could be moved into userspace (or, if the author worked on it offline, they can recreate it from their copy) and continuously worked on (adding sources and citations and such) until the time that the topic ''is'' notable. ] 15:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Comprehension check (G12) == | |||
| Just a quick note to check whether this bullet point in G12 is easily understandable: | |||
| *''"The infringement was introduced at once by a single person rather than created organically on wiki and then copied by another website such as one of the many Misplaced Pages mirrors."'' | |||
| I'm not sure that this bit is as clear as it could be. What do people think this is trying to say (if people disagree, then the wording will need to be changed). ] 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ugh. What about: "* The infringement was entered as a block of text by a single user (rather than created organically on Misplaced Pages and then copied by a mirror site, which can lead to false positives)." Probably still too wordy, but preserves all of the original intent, I think. -- '']']'' 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The one thing this, or the first version, fails to make clear is that copying of Misplaced Pages's material is '''not only done by mirror sites'''. Sometimes you have mirror sites that correctly attribute the material to Misplaced Pages. Sometimes you have mirror sites which fail to attribute their material to Misplaced Pages. And then you have sites which selectively copy only a few articles, and claim it as something they wrote. The important point is not whether the site is a mirror, but who originally wrote the material (with mirrors being one of the subsequent considerations after asking the initial question of who wrote the material), and whether the website in question is either (a) claiming Misplaced Pages wrote the material; (b) not saying who wrote the material; or (c) claiming that they themselves wrote the material. Also, I've just noticed that the wording prejudices the reader by saying "the infringement" rather than "the suspected infringement". ] 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Honestly I still don't see why we need this in the first place. Common sense dictates that if it was created originally on Misplaced Pages and not copied over, then it's not a copyright violation in the first place. --] 22:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes, but it is not clear whether a particular page was copied from Misplaced Pages or not. This describes how that is determined. With the 48-hour requirement, copyvios that could possibly have been copied from Misplaced Pages were sent to ] where the people checking it were familiar with how to do it. Now, copyvios are mixed in among the many vanities and nonsense and are handled by people more used to dealing with such obvious cases. Obviously, something copied from Misplaced Pages should not be deleted, but it is not so obvious that something was indeed copied. —]→] • 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Then it's more "advice for determining if something is a copyvio" than a requirement for determining which copyvios that we can delete. It's redundant, like I said, and I just don't like the idea of advice being included as a requirement, especially with vague wording, as that can lead to people getting the wrong ideas and thinking we should keep a copyvio because it's been wikified, and so on. --] 22:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think a better way to put this would be to say that something is only an '''obvious''' copyvio if it is clear who originally wrote the material. That leads logically to an examination of the page history to see if the ''majority'' of the text was added in a single chunk by a single user (in which case it is probably a copyvio). ie. if the page history shows evidence of an "organic" wiki creation of the text, then it is probably not a copyvio (or rather, it is probably the other website that is copying us). Saying that clearly is the problem here. | |||
| And just to show that this is never really as simple as it seems, there is the not inconceivable scenario where a random user creates an article based largely on text from a Misplaced Pages mirror, without realising that he is using text that already exists on Misplaced Pages under a different title. That is effectively a cut-and-paste without attribution, but via a Misplaced Pages mirror rather than the usual cutting and pasting between Misplaced Pages articles. ie. Article A is created and a Misplaced Pages mirror legitimately copies it as A*. Sometime later, article B is created when someone copies text from A* straight back into Misplaced Pages. One person sees that A and A* are identical, and tags it as copyvio. An admin comes along and correctly sees that A* is a mirror article, and so this is not a case of copyvio, and removes the tag. Meanwhile, someone else tags B as copyvio of A*, and a confused admin looks at the page history of B and sees that it was added as a single chunk of text, but that A* is a Misplaced Pages mirror, so B looks like a copyvio, but isn't. ] 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:12, 30 December 2024
 | Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria
Shortcut
Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be
If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page. this header: view • edit |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Template doc pages that have been converted
There are two types of template /doc pages that have been sent to TfD and always deleted. Navigation templates that had their doc converted to {{Navbox documentation}} and WikiProject banners that had their doc converted to the automatic one with |DOC=auto. Can these be tagged with G6? Sending them to TfD really adds nothing to the process. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've tagged such pages with WP:G6 before, giving a justification like "template uses {{navdoc}} instead", and it's always worked fine. As long as the /doc page is just boilerplate (as opposed to substantial/unique to its template), I think it's clearly uncontroversial maintenance. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am also such an admin. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
New T-criteria proposal
Based on the above, and the fact that despite multiple admins indicating that G6 shouldn't be used for /doc deletion in the Template space, I would like to propose that we add a new T-criteria specifically to fix this issue. It would be something along the lines of TX: documentation subpages that are no longer transcluded by the parent template
. I'm happy to discuss wording and scope (or clarifications as to what constitutes "no longer used"), but from a point of initial consideration:
- Objective: yes, as a /doc is either transcluded by its parent template (or for whatever reason, any template) or it is not
- Uncontestable: the only situation where I could see an unused /doc needing to be kept is for cases of attribution (if it were copied to another /doc for example) but in those cases it should just be redirected anyway. At TFD they are 100% deleted.
- Frequent: I decline at least one per week, and TFD is rife with them.
- Nonredundant: As indicated in the discussion in the main section, we are misusing G6 to allow for deletion, which seems to be the only other criteria that people seem to want to chuck these under.
Thanks for the consideration. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can this be made more general? Maybe "a template subpage not used by its parent, or another template"? With the understanding that Template:*/sandbox and Template:*/testcases are "used" despite not being transcluded. —Cryptic 23:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any other template subpages that are as frequently obsoleted, to the point of being objectively and uncontestably delete-worthy? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- They seem to mostly be deleted with G6. Mostly-applicable deletions in 2024. —Cryptic 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- What I see in that list is almost exclusively User talk:Plastikspork/Archive 15#Mass template deletions (which some other admins did too apparently), to which this speedy deletion criterion as currently worded wouldn't apply because they were redirects not templates. Then there's Wikipedia_talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 26#Making Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates G6, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5, expired editnotices, some stuff like Template:POTD/2024-05-03, and run-of-the-mill speedies under other criteria or other parts of G6. The POTD example brings up an interesting point - this concept of delegation of deletion authority isn't specific to template namespace, it can be seen at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1, Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/M3GAN 2.0/archive1, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wizzrobe61 etc. Support as proposed anyway, though, I'm just bouncing some ideas off the wall. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (edited 03:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC))
- They seem to mostly be deleted with G6. Mostly-applicable deletions in 2024. —Cryptic 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Making a new objective criterion, dealing with the misuse of the catchall G6, more “general” seems to miss the point.
- You want to make unused template subpages speediable? Does “unused” mean “never used”? How frequently is “unused template subpage” the driving reason for deletion at xfd? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be TfD, not MfD? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Changed to xfd. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be TfD, not MfD? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any other template subpages that are as frequently obsoleted, to the point of being objectively and uncontestably delete-worthy? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support for /doc pages as proposed. Oppose anything else without a much more objective proposal than that suggest in the conversation above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. As one of the editors that tend to send them to TfD, I sometimes skip them just because of the extra hassle of combining multiple templates into one nomination to make life easier for everyone. These templates always get deleted and usually only one editor even cares to comment, which is expected, since no one cares and the newer doc is always better. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I support the general concept (ideally as a more general thing, because it is a frequent-ish occurrence), and I want to propose some draft language.
Wordsmithing welcome. (Being very pedantic, what ENGVAR does WP:CSD use? Favor or favour? Centralized or centralised?) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)T5. Unused template subpages
This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as template documentation subpages which are no longer used in favor of centralized documentation, /core subpages which are not called by the template itself, and old subpages of {{POTD protected}}. It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}} . Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.
- it seems to use -or and -ize spellings. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wording looks good, and I don't think a T5-exemption template overcomplicates things any more than the G8-exemption template does. Worth checking back after a year or so and potentially trimming if it never ends up employed in practice.
- On the pedantry side of things, excepting the accessibility provisions the WP:MOS only applies to articles so there is no requirement or need for CSD to be internally consistent in its ENGVAR. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:540A:5E37:3B0B:2225 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support the general concept, with the wording used by HouseBlaster. As a second choice, the original /doc-only proposal could work. Anything that moves well-defined routine operations outside of G6 is a positive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Pre-RFC finalisation
Before I put this forward as a formal RFC, are there any final thoughts about the wording of the new criteria based on the discussion above? Primefac (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is centralised documentation intended as the only reason for lack of use that allows for speedy deletion or is it intended that all unused documentation subpages are eligible? I can see the current wording being read both ways. If the intent is the latter then rewording to
...documentation subpages which are no longer used (e.g. due to centralized documentation)
would solve the issue (as would just removing what I've put as a parenthetical). If the former is intended then someone better at wordsmithing than me will need to have at it. - As for {{T5-exempt}}, I'd say it would be beneficial as there are bound to be some pages that appear unused but actually aren't (something related to subst-only templates, or uncommon options in transitory templates) or which are needed for some other not-immediately-obvious purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- The most common reason I see for /doc pages nominated for G6 is when it is a "simple" /doc (maybe only containing {{collapsible option}} or similar) where the documentation gets moved to the main template and the /doc is no longer necessary. Other situations do include where multiple similar templates end up sharing a /doc, but usually what happens there is they are all redirected to that central /doc. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I like HouseBlaster's statement, but I wonder if the confusion comes because it's three long examples given after the initial statement; would it be better to say just simply
This applies to unused subpages of templates. Such pages include template documentation subpages...
(i.e. split it into two sentences). That might reduce the confusion of it only being centralised /docs. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)- That works. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- What about using a bulleted list, like WP:G8?
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)T5. Unused template subpages
This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:
- Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
- /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
- Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.
- A+ Primefac (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- We should also probably include the current de-facto process of Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates here as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I seriously love that I can still learn about new processes on Misplaced Pages. Probably not the best from a WP:CREEP perspective, but I still find it cool.
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)T5. Unused template subpages
This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:
- Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
- /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
- Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
- Unnecessary subpages of {{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used
It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.
- I seriously love that I can still learn about new processes on Misplaced Pages. Probably not the best from a WP:CREEP perspective, but I still find it cool.
- Hmm. We currently process a ton of subtemplates at TFD after the deletion of the primary template (this is backward to the proposal and discussion here, so it's not the exact same case) as G8. Is there merit to spinning that out of G8? Izno (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see the rationale, but I do agree it's the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't be opposed but I don't necessarily see it as being necessary to combine them. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing much benefit in moving something which is a core part of G8 out of that criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see the rationale, but I do agree it's the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't be opposed but I don't necessarily see it as being necessary to combine them. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this party, but I submit for consideration, somewhat warily, Editnotices that are no longer used, typically because they have been blanked after sanctions expired or someone thought better of having an edit notice at all. We can use the "blanked by author" criterion for some of them, but most are blanked by people who did not create the notices. See this TFD. I will understand if including them would stretch the definition of this criterion, since they are not subpages, but they are in template space and tied to specific pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would best to propose edit notices as a separate criterion, because as you say it's a stretch to include them with this one. My only query would be how frequent deletion of them is? Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, edit notices are all subpages of Template:Editnotices, so it is not that much of a stretch to include them. However, I think to simplify things, we should have a separate discussion after the T5 discussion where we can consider whether it is frequent enough to merit a CSD and, if so, whether it should be T6 or a bullet point in T5.I will launch an RfC in 24 hours if there are no further comments/objections/feedback to the proposal above. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's OK with me to exclude it here. There are maybe about 100 to 200 blank editnotices right now, but I don't think anyone has been paying attention to them (many were blanked in 2021), so I'm guessing that deletion rates would be something in the low single digits per month. TFD is probably fine unless someone wants to go to the trouble of making a separate CSD criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, edit notices are all subpages of Template:Editnotices, so it is not that much of a stretch to include them. However, I think to simplify things, we should have a separate discussion after the T5 discussion where we can consider whether it is frequent enough to merit a CSD and, if so, whether it should be T6 or a bullet point in T5.I will launch an RfC in 24 hours if there are no further comments/objections/feedback to the proposal above. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to launch the RfC, but it turns out there is one additional thing we need to determine. WP:TCSD, while currently obsolete, used to apply to both templates and modules. I see no reason T5 should not apply to modules, given that modules are really templates which we have to put in a different namespace due to technical restrictions. I think adding
subpages of Module:Sandbox
to the list of things ineligible for T5 would solve any problems. Do others have thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)- From the perspective of someone largely ignorant about modules your proposal makes sense, but defer to those who know what they are talking about if they disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me too as a module namespace regular. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages)
ENACTED There is strong consensus to enact T5 as a new criterion for speedy deletion. Participants argued that this criterion would reduce the load on G6, and highlighted that deleted pages would be eligible for WP:REFUND. Some editors noted that deleting administrators should take special care in identifying templates and modules orphaned in error, as well as when dealing with taxonomy-related pages.Frostly (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should T5 be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion for templates and modules? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposed text
T5. Unused template subpages
This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:
- Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
- /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
- Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
- Unnecessary subpages of {{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used
It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, subpages of Module:Sandbox, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.
- Support as proposer. These are frequently and uncontroversially deleted at TFD. Some of them are also currently being shoved into G6, but reducing the load G6 bears is a feature of this proposal, not a bug. It meets all four NEWCSD criteria:
Y Objective: Either a subpage of a template is being used or it is not- Y Uncontestible: Always get deleted at TFD
- Y Frequent: Primefac personally declines at least one erroneous G6 nomination per week
- Y Nonredundant: They are certainly being tagged as G6 (see above), but G6 is not a catch-all and we should be decreasing the load it carries
- I also think that using CSD has the benefit of making these deletions easier to overturn via WP:REFUND if the use for the subpage later arises. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have pinged all participants in the above discussion using
{{bcc}}to avoid clogging the discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- I am going to be eating WP:TROUT tonight. I forgot to include the exemption for subpages of Module:Sandbox; I have silently corrected it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Notified: Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals), and Template:Centralized discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are the two specific examples of POTD protected and Taxonomy truly necessary? —Cryptic 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe so, yes, because they are currently either deleted under G6 or G8 and the intention was to fold them into this as a template-specific reason. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support with or without the examples, per my comments in the pre-discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support * Pppery * it has begun... 04:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support as long as people are careful. CSD nominators and deleting admins will need to be careful about pages orphaned through edits that should be reverted. In monitoring orphaned /doc subpages, I sometimes find templates where the {{documentation}} portion has been deleted, typically in error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support, anything that reduces the workload on G6 is good to have as a standalone criterion. Although I would be careful with taxonomy templates related to unused taxa, since old taxa can still be documented, or even attempt to make a comeback with varying level of success (like Ornithoscelida). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support, seems logical and is being proposed by folks who know what they're doing. I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be WP:REFUNDed upon request? Toadspike 08:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be WP:REFUNDed upon request?
Yes, explicitly:editors are free to request undeletion
. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above The AP (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Makes sense per above. Can’t see any reason why not. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support As Jonesey said, nominators and admins need to take care that unnecessary deletions are not made. However, this is overall a good idea. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fine both with or without examples; the NEWCSD analysis is on the nose. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Takipoint123 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Author removal
T5 should allow removal by the creator of the page, right? Seems uncontroversial but needs to be added to the list. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree on both counts. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed; easy enough to tag something with {{t5-exempt}} in those cases. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed; easy enough to tag something with {{t5-exempt}} in those cases. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Circumventing a salted title: G4 or not?
It isn't very rare to see salted pages being recreated at variants of their original title, for instance Arshin Mehta Actress today (as Arshin Mehta is fully protected from recreation). In these cases, I've seen G4 be used, although it might not necessarily fit if the content isn't the same as the deleted one. Does G4 still apply, should it be expanded/another criterion added, or is that something that shouldn't be in the purview of CSD? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- G4 applies since there was an AFD on the same topic (assuming concerns haven't been addressed) but not simply because of the salt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- /Archive 88#Proposed new or modified criterion: clear SALT evasion * Pppery * it has begun... 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for both the previous proposal and the false positive list! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- /Archive 88#Proposed new or modified criterion: clear SALT evasion * Pppery * it has begun... 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've G4-deleted the recreation and blocked the account (which was the same one that created the version at AfD) as spam/advertising-only. I came extremely close to title blacklisting, but decided that step isn't quite warranted unless they evade the block and create another version at a different title. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have a database report I look at every day or two that finds articles at titles that are a suffix of a salted title. There are a lot of false positives, but also a lot of stuff needing attention. And while G4 is my most common reaction, I have also created redirects or given name pages over obsolete saltings, started AfDs where I wasn't convinced enough that G4 applies, and done a lot of other stuff. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers to
sufficiently identical copies
, something a non-admin patroller can't check, rather than any recreation not addressing concerns. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)- If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with {{salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, {{salt}} on its own doesn't add any categories to a page. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well that could be something useful to have. Given the specific title, I wonder if it should add the category itself or if there should be a similar maintenance template for "possible salt evasion" that would add it? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, {{salt}} on its own doesn't add any categories to a page. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes there'll be an archived copy of a deleted page to compare against, for instance . Sometimes there'll be visible past versions in the edit filter log, for instance Special:AbuseLog/39211633. In other cases, you can ask an admin. There's usually someone around on IRC or Discord who wouldn't mind assessing for G4ability. (Not me. Don't ask me. I hate doing G4s.) That said, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a template that says essentially "This page was created in apparent evasion of creation protection at
{{{1}}}, and an admin is asked to assess whether it should a) be deleted under CSD G4 or b) treated as valid and moved to the correct title". I don't think that's something non-admins should be doing every time they see a recreated page, but when there's clear salt evasion I think it's reasonable to presume admin attention is needed. (All that said, obligatory plug for my essay WP:NOSALT. G4s are easier to trace when there's no salting to evade!) -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)- I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title like Articles for deletion before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence at WP:SALT saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruption there. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —Cryptic 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is that normal WP:RAAA requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name like Jimmie Harris or Luke Barber, to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- And, of course, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive229#Quick stats on salted pages. The protecting admin for both of your examples is no longer an admin, so you should be free to unsalt them. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- To clean up old SALTing, where there’s any doubt you should go to WP:RFUP. True, you should ask the deleting admin first, but the text would be near identical in both places, should the old admin not answer or you not agree with their answer.
- Do this a couple of dozen times, and then talk about the need for streamlining the process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think admins need to ask at RFUP before they unsalt pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Except where stated otherwise in policy, any reversion of an admin action is governed by WP:RAAA. The way that policy is usually interpreted, that means that if the reversion is because of a clear change in circumstance, it can be done unilaterally; I did that with Willy on Wheels, the relevant change there having been the emergence of a suitable redirect target. But if it's because some admin thinks the title just doesn't need to be protected anymore, then RAAA's expectation of discussion applies (if the protecting admin is still active). WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO might cover some common-sense cases, but wouldn't apply to a systematic effort. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think admins need to ask at RFUP before they unsalt pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is that normal WP:RAAA requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name like Jimmie Harris or Luke Barber, to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruption there. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —Cryptic 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence at WP:SALT saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with your essay! For the case where we already have a salted title and there is possible of salt evasion, I made a prototype template at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}} based on your wording (and the design of {{Salt}}), happy to hear any feedback on whether it should be implemented! (presumably, with a corresponding tracking category) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title like Articles for deletion before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with {{salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers to
- If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Adding the "possible salt evasion" template
Following the above discussion, I have made a prototype for a template alerting administrators of possible salt evasion, which is currently at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}}. What do we think about moving this to templatespace, with a corresponding tracking category, and adding a bullet point to WP:G4 mentioning its existence? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's redundant to {{salt}}. Just give it its parameters (which you should always be doing anyway). —Cryptic 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not really, {{salt}} is to ask for a page to be salted, while this would be to note evasion from an already salted title. Also, {{salt}} does not produce categories (as it is meant to be used alongside G4), while this would be to alert admins that they should check if it might be a G4 (as non-admins cannot see it). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
A7 and groups of people
WP:A7 is applicable to "people". Is there any reason why it has to be a single person, rather than a group of people?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, no. Changing it from a single person to "persons" was the very first expansion of A7 (linked discussion here), about half a year after it was first introduced. The last vestige of "groups" was removed in this edit, which was labeled a revert and a clarification but was neither. —Cryptic 01:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- You do have a way with words. So, just to be clear, A7 would therefore apply to clans and tribes, right?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. —Cryptic 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. —Cryptic 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- You do have a way with words. So, just to be clear, A7 would therefore apply to clans and tribes, right?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
RFC on interpretation of G11
See Misplaced Pages:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you ought to sign your proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like policy RFCs shouldn't be about who started them, and WP:RFC says "Sign the statement with either
~~~~(name, time and date) or~~~~~(just the time and date). El Beeblerino 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)- Didn't know that - shows you how often I start RfCs...never. How about publicizing it at WP:AN? I wouldn't have known about it except I had the CSD Talk page on my watchlist because of a question I recently asked. Sounds like the RfC affects admins a fair amount.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like policy RFCs shouldn't be about who started them, and WP:RFC says "Sign the statement with either