Misplaced Pages

Section break

DONE All the draft templates and documentation pages have been created. They may still need to be checked for mistakes etc. Links to the draft templates e.g. Template:db-a1/new and Template:db-a1/doc can be found in the left-hand column of the subpages for general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals). --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still checking them over, as is Moonriddengirl too (and other people too, I hope). --Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A few minor changes in wording are being made in the draft templates and discussed on the subpages (Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates (general) and Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates (images). On the "general" page is a discussion of whether to say "blatant" copyright infringement in the template wording.

Re Template:db-g6/new: Like the current template, it allows the user to specify "wording" providing a reason for the deletion. I suggest it may be easier for users to remember to use this feature if the parameter is named "reason" rather than "wording", or if the user can call it either "reason" or "wording" and both will work. Possibly the user should be allowed to specify an unnamed parameter and it would use it like that – or would that be confusing if the user thinks they're invoking some other feature? I suggest that an unnamed parameter at least be added after the end of the sentence, as an additional reason.

I'm adding another column at the right-hand side of the tables on the subpages, for the wpReason parameter. So far I've started on the one at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general). This is the parameter that specifies what will appear in the edit summary of the deletion log. How about also having each template pass the wpReason parameter through, so that the user tagging a page can specify a particular deletion log reason? (Could be abused? Would rarely be used?) The wpReason may be similar to the regular template wording but might be shorter, and might have "because it's" (as I think Od Mishehu prefers) or just nothing instead of "as a". I encourage people to edit the wpReasons in the table. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on finishing the first drafts of all the templates. I'm finding this list extremely useful for error-checking. A few things I notice from browsing that complete list, in no particular order of importance:

• There is a lot of whitespace which needs to be removed from before and after the templates, particularly between the "new wording is being discussed" notice and the start of the template. Edits like these () are necessary to ensure that the templates stack properly with other ambox templates on articles. The templates in the sandbox page permalinked above should form one continuous block.
• {{db-u2/new}} is incomplete, I think
• Do all the templates pass the |bot={{{bot|}}} parameter?
• I had already created a parameter ("summary=") in a few templates which was intended to be the deletion log entry. This seems to duplicate the functionality of "wpReason". I have no preference for one over the other, but they need to be merged.
• I think that the "see" in (see CSD G1) etc, should be removed.
• The bolding in {{db-g1/new}} and {{db-g10/new}}, among others, is a bit wierd. I would suggest putting all the bold text together, followed by the non-bold - effectively move the CSD reference before the unbold text. At the very least, something has to be done about the brackets - one bracket is bolded, the other is not.
• Are there any instances where the "notes" parameter does not begin with "<br><small>:"?? If not, this should be incorporated into {{db-meta/new}}.
• The template wordings need a general and thorough copyedit to ensure they are consistent with respects to trailing punctuation, interface with the leading text, etc.
• The subsidiary notes for the i-series are differently formatted to the g-series

The most important thing is to sort out the underlying structure, and what parameters have to be passed, and how they are used in {{db-meta/new}}. However, as the wordings are unlikely to change significantly, there's no reason why they can't be cleaned up at the same time. Great work so far, though. Happy‑melon 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Happy-melon, and thanks for your collaboration and feedback. I'm sorry I'd forgotten about your "summary" parameter: let's use that instead of wpReason. Does it work the same way, or differently? Do we just set db-meta/new to say something like wpReason=summary instead of wpReason=wpReason (modulo a bunch of curly brackets)?

Re "see": Two reasons for having it: One, I think it encourages people to click on the link. Two, I think it makes it less likely that people will think the reason in the template is being presented as an exact quote of the CSD. What are your reasons for wanting to remove the "see"? I'll reply to the rest at a later date/time. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whitespace: I don't completely understand, since the draft templates don't have the "new wording is being discussed" thingy. I guess when I put the hatnotes in I didn't do it quite right. However, I see in your sandbox3 that there does seem to be some extra whitespace, and I can help later to try to remove it.

I already fixed db-u2/new. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vis whitespace, this would be a better example than my fixes to the current templates - in most cases the whitespace is caused by a gap between the end of the template and the start of the noincluded documentation. My "summary" parameter is currently what fills the invisible <span id="delete-reason"> span, but it contains the same wording as should be preloaded in the direct deletion link. When creating text for this field, remember that the deletion log summary is limited to 255 characters, so brevity is important. In most cases, little more than a link to the CSD criterion and a two- or three-word summary will be required; some criteria like G6 or A7 may require a more substantial summary. Vis "see", my opinion is that having the "see CSD Xn" in brackets forms a sentence fragment, which reads poorly. I think that either the "see" or the brackets should be removed. For instance, "as a page created soley to disparage its subject (CSD G10)." and "as a page created soley to disparage its subject. See CSD G10." both read better than "as a page created soley to disparage its subject (See CSD G10)." At the very least, the "See" should be decapitalised. I am going to work on compartmentalising the "place XX on the talk page of creator" notes into their own parameter for increased uniformity. Happy‑melon 09:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The "See" isn't a sentence fragment. It's a separate, complete sentence, and if that's your concern, we can just make sure there's a period at the end of the previous sentence. Removing the parentheses is OK with me. I think it's not grammatically wrong to have an entire sentence inside parentheses, though.

I'm sorry that I don't understand the code <span id="delete-reason">. I've just modified Template:db-meta/new to use "summary" instead of "wpReason" as the parameter passed in from the other templates. That's near the end of the db-meta/new wikitext. The other use of "summary", which I don't understand at all, is in a completely different part of the wikitext, closer to the beginning. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a bunch of whitespace from the current templates, (displayed in ). --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather not have "because it's" in the deletion log summaries (as I think Od Mishehu suggested) for two reasons: one, it's extra unnecessary words, and two, it's present tense, which won't make as much sense after the article is deleted. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

I put short suggested deletion log summaries in the right-hand columns of the tables in the subpages (links to discussion subpages are at the top of this talk page). I don't have strong feelings about the wording of these summaries, so feel free to edit them or suggest changes. Moonriddengirl or Happy-melon, if you'd like me to go through and make them all into sentences or add/remove/move periods etc. I will, insh other editors, for either the template wordings or deletion log summaries, if you explain clearly what you want and do one as an example. I might even be convinced to put in all the "because it's's" for Od Mishehu. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few fundamental modifications to {{db-meta/new}}, and propagated them through the new templates. Separating the criterion out into its own paramater is useful for several reasons, not just for standardising formatting. It would be possible, if we wanted to, to remove the "self" parameter from the templates and build the functionality into db-meta - I don't intend to do this, but it's just an example of the extra flexibility that the extra parameter provides. For instance, I could easily code something into db-meta to only allow CSD templates to be displayed in namespaces where their criterion is valid. I've temporarily added an extra ambox to db-meta to display the preloaded summaries I've temporarily hijacked the "bot" parameter to display the summaries only - I'll remove this functionality before we go live. Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (gallery) now has a full list of templates and their summaries - feel free to edit any that you don't like, but try and keep them short. What's your opinion on suggesting two different variants of the same notification template (eg {{db-g10}})? I'd be inclined to just give the basic version, and only offer two when they are completley different templates. Happy‑melon 16:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good. I see you've made some changes that I understand and agree with, and some that I don't understand and won't worry about.

I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting two different variants. I guess A7 has variants, e.g. db-band etc. I don't know what the variants would be or how they would be made available.

I think the documentation for the category parameter needs to be changed to {{db-g1|category=]}} – unless you can figure out how to make the templates work using the current documentation, {{db-g1|category=Example category for speedy deletion}} i.e. where the user only needs to type the actual name of the category. I couldn't figure out how to get that to work.

I hope the usage documentation isn't confusing the way I formatted it. It could be misinterpreted to mean that you can't use the "bot" and "category" parameters both at the same time. That's not what I intend it to mean; it's just examples of usage. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the category syntax in db-g7 (old or new) make any sense? The second if clause seems to check whether there's a rationale or not and then assign the identical categories whether there is or not. The first if clause seems to check whether it's user talk space or not: why? Why not do the same thing for user space as for user talk space, for example? And is it assigning no category at all if it isn't user talk space, or what? I'd be inclined to get rid of both if clauses and have a much simpler category assignment, as in the other templates. I'm asking here first in case the syntax is actually doing something useful. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Same question for db-u1/new (or old). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all the draft templates pass the bot parameter. They all have the summary parameter defined (thanks to Happy-melon). I checked the categories: unless I'm mistaken, they all include the page in Candidates for speedy deletion (in at least one case, only under certain circumstances though), and the syntax for categories looks OK except as noted above and except that I can't verify that the T3 syntax is OK because I don't understand all of it, and except for a question mark that I don't understand in db-i3/new (<includeonly>{{{category|]]}}}</includeonly>) I checked the wordings for errors of grammar and punctuation and they look OK to me. I think the whitespace situation is OK, too. I still need to check over the documentation but am waiting to see if you have an answer to my question about the usage of the category parameter, Happy-melon. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vis "different variants", I was talking about the user-talk notification templates like {{nonsensepage}}, which some of the CSD templates suggest should be placed by the nominator. For instance, {{db-g12/new}} suggests placing the {{sd-copyvio}} template. However, some templates (like {{db-g10/new}}, for instance) have two suggestions, which are different variants of the same template. This seems to me to be taking up unnecessary extra space, but I wanted to know your opinion on removing the variant with "header=1" and just leaving the basic version.

The category conditionals in {{db-g7/new}} and {{db-u1/new}} do not make very much sense, and are also unnecessary - I have removed them. I can see what they were trying to do - only add the page to CAT:CSD if the rationale parameter (which is required for deletions in the User Talk namespace) is specified - but the most likely outcome is simply that the tag will be added and forgotten, and will languish on the page without any admin action. As I said above, if we do implement any namespace-based restrictions, we'll do them centrally at {{db-meta/new}}. On a similar line, the idea of the category parameter is not really so that custom categories can be specified, but rather that adding of pages to CAT:CSD can be supressed when necessary. As such, I don't really think that the use of this parameter to specify additional/alternative categories should be documented.

Overall, and not to denigrate the work you've done on the documentation, the large amount of duplication between 40 separate documentation pages makes me wonder if it would make sense to centralise the documentation onto one page, with switches to include appropriate template-specific content. This would make it easier for the documentation to be standardised and updated - although I'll try and make it as user-friendly as possible, lest editing the documentation become as difficult as modifying the templates themselves! I'll have a play and see if I can come up with anything workable. Happy‑melon 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re two variants of the same template: The "header=1" version simply adds a section header above the warning being placed on the user talk page. It doesn't much matter to me whether more than one option is displayed, but it's possible that there are a lot of people enamoured of one option or the other who will complain if one is deleted. If they don't show up in this discussion here, I suppose the only way to find out is to boldly change it. I'd mildly prefer the option with the header to be the default. An argument for this is that it would be easier for someone to delete "header=1" than to figure out that this is what to type and type it. Another argument is that it's arguably more conventional and tidier to include a header when posting to a talk page on a new subject, so that one's comment doesn't get lost among the posts of some other discussion. I guess that in most cases the user won't have looked at the talk page they're about to post on before they decide which version of the template to copy and paste, so it's an arbitrary personal choice; although since this is a consensus system, such personal choices, if there is strong feeling behind them, need to be respected, and I don't think two variants is too much space. More than about two or three would be getting to be maybe too much IMO. Space is not at a premium; time is at a premium, and two variants may save time for users who care enough whether they're posting a header or not to type in or delete "header=1" (if there are such users).

Yes, centralizing part of the documentation is probably a good idea. Not documenting the category parameter is OK. If it were really for adding a different category, I was thinking that as a default it should still always include Candidates for speedy deletion. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On a fairly separate line, I wonder if building in (optional) support for delayed categorisation into those templates other than T3 (mainly in the i-series) that require time delays would be a good idea. Happy‑melon 21:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Rick Block elsewhere on this page, apparently the delayed categorization is activated only when the page is next edited. It may be better to handle that using a bot or something. Most robust method perhaps: delayed categorization written into the template, plus a bot to do occasional null edits to everything in a certain category, in order to trigger the recategorization. That way, if the bot stops functioning, things would still eventually tend to get recategorized. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages are also recategorised when they work their way through the job queue, but pages are only added to the job queue when a template transcluded onto them is altered. A bot to perform null edits would be nice. Happy‑melon 10:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 3

I think we're ready to flash this across the various pumps, then go live. Anything we've forgotten to do? Happy‑melon 19:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Stop the press! I think we need to make new versions of these other templates too:

• Template:Db
• Template:db-xfd
• Template:Db-histmerge (odd-looking one)
• Template:Db-empty
• Template:Db-blankcsd
• Template:Badname (odd-looking one)
• Template:Cfr-speedy (odd-looking one)
• Template:Db-disambig
• Template:Db-blanktalk
• Template:Db-copypaste
• Template:Db-move
• Template:Db-movedab
• Template:Db-botnomain (odd-looking one)
• Template:Db-ccnoncom
• Template:Duplicate (odd-looking one)
• Template:Deprecated (very odd-looking one?)

These ones may be OK already, I'm not sure:

• Template:Db-band
• Template:Db-club
• Template:Db-inc
• Template:Db-person
• Template:Db-web

As a minimum, they need their wording or punctuation adjusted slightly to fit with the new version of db-meta. At the extreme, for some of them we could either update the CSD to reflect them as recognized sub-criteria or else delete the templates as not supported by policy. I suggest a middle ground where we find some wording to make it more clear in the template that the wording in the template does not appear in G6, for example, but that G6 only says "uncontroversial housekeeping" and the template wording is expanding on that. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are links for some of them. I may create some of these in a few minutes, though not the odd-looking ones, which don't use db-meta:

• Template:Db/new
• Template:db-xfd/new
• Template:Db-histmerge/new (odd-looking one) (I suggest redirecting to db-move)
• Template:Db-empty/new (to be redirected to A3)
• Template:Db-blankcsd/new (I suggest redirecting to A3)
• Template:Badname/new (odd-looking one) (To be redirected to I1)
• Template:Cfr-speedy/new (odd-looking one) (To be redirected to C2)
• Template:Db-disambig/new (based on G6)
• Template:Db-blanktalk/new (based on G6)
• Template:Db-copypaste/new (based on G6)
• Template:Db-move/new (based on G6)
• Template:Db-movedab/new (New version not needed.Yes, new version is needed after all. Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) See below.) (based on G6)
• Template:Db-botnomain/new (odd-looking one) (To be deleted)
• Template:Db-ccnoncom/new (I suggest redirecting to db-i3. See below.)
• Template:Duplicate/new (odd-looking one) (To be redirected to I1)
• Template:Deprecated/new (very odd-looking one?)

--Coppertwig (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a fairly convincing reason why we shouldn't proceed!! I'd suggest that you try and retain the same hierarchy - so all the G6-related templates work off {{db-g6/new}}, all the A7-based templates work off {{db-a7}}, etc. I'll have a look at some of the wierder ones tomorrow and decide what (if anything) needs to be done with them - some of them I think we can TfD or just deprecate. Happy‑melon 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it's not that big an issue. Some of them already depend on db-g6 and just need minor adjustments in wording/punctuation. I edited db-g6 to say "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance." if the "wording" parameter is used; this is invoked for example by these subtemplates such as Template:db-blanktalk/new. Hopefully that makes it relatively clear that the template is not quoting G6 directly. I'll continue working on them. Thanks for being willing to have a go at the wierder ones! If some of them are not used much, it would be good to get rid of them. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Example: Template:db-move/new used with {{db-move/new|name of page|given reason for move|category=}} looks like this: --Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

db-movedab transcribes db-move. The only thing it does is append "(disambiguation)" to the page name. It doesn't need any modification. db-movedab still needs to pass through the bot parameter and a few other things, so I'm making a new version of it after all.00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:db-ccnoncom can be replaced by a redirect to Template:db-i3, in my opinion. Not worth creating a "/new" version perhaps; I suggest just redirecting it immediately – no need to wait for implementation of the other templates for that. Current wording of db-ccnoncom: "Image licensed under a Creative Commons license that specifies "for non-commercial use only" or "no derivative works" which was either uploaded after May 19, 2005, or is not used in any articles, and which lacks a permitted claim under our policy for non-free content. (CSD I3)" Current wording of db-i3: "Image licensed "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Misplaced Pages only" which was either uploaded after May 19, 2005, or is not used in any articles, and which lacks a permitted claim under our policy for non-free content. (CSD I3)" Wording of db-i3/new: "as an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" which either was uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 and has no fair use rationale, or is not used in any articles" --Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of them depend on db-g6/new, which will need to be changed to db-g6 when we implement everything.

I'm passing the bot parameter through. Are there any other parameters that need to be passed through, e.g. summary? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can take the opportunity to make a few redirections and deletions:

• {{db-empty}} --> {{db-a3}}
• {{db-botnomain}} --> TfD, noting that it is completely deprecated by {{db-g8|bot=ExampleBot}} but can't be easily redirected
• {{badname}} --> {{db-i1}}
• {{Duplicate}} --> {{db-i1}}
• {{Cfr-speedy}} --> {{db-c1}}

Most of the others work as soft redirect to {{db-g6}}. Happy‑melon 12:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except that Cfr-speedy should redirect to {{db-c2}}, not c1, and that discussion may be required with whoever (if anyone) is running bots using botnomain, since their bots would have to be updated to use the new template and syntax. (How to find such people? Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 2 run by User:Mets501: this may be (the only?) one)

I think I'm going to create a standard documentation template to be transcluded into all the template documentation pages, as you had suggested, Happy-melon. I hope I won't be duplicating your effort. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the existing new (does not include these:

• Template:Db-histmerge/new (odd-looking one)
• Template:Badname/new (odd-looking one)
• Template:Cfr-speedy/new (odd-looking one)
• Template:Db-botnomain/new (odd-looking one)
• Template:Db-ccnoncom/new (I suggest redirecting to db-i3. See below.)
• Template:Duplicate/new (odd-looking one)
• Template:Deprecated/new (very odd-looking one?))

Everything looks good to me, but I did a little clean-up on Template:Db-empty/new. --Moonriddengirl 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I've added some notes to the list of new templates in my post above. I suggest that db-blankcsd be redirected to A3. I just inserted "or page history merge" into db-move, and suggest that db-histmerge be a redirect to db-move. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I now have {{db-i7/doc}} transcluding a general documentation template {{db doc}} which in turn transcludes {{db doc usage}}. I only have the category usage in there as an example and will take it out later. I'm planning to make the other doc templates also transclude db doc. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited Template:db-i7/doc and Template:db-g6/doc to transclude {{db doc}}. I may wait for Happy-melon to comment before I change any others. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I had been hacking around with {{db-meta/doc}} to incorporate switchable content. You can see the implementation style I had planned in {{db-g1/new}}. I think my syntax might be a bit easier to understand, but I definitely prefer your choice of page name. What's the best way to merge these two systems?

Good work on the extra templates - they all look good. The more we can get hard- or soft-redirected to basic CSD criteria, the more systematic the system will be, so it's looking good. Happy‑melon 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

However you would like to do it is fine, Happy-melon. Oh, so you think we can manage with just one documentation template that covers all of them? I guess it looks as if that will work. OK. Just move Template:db-meta/doc to Template:db doc and delete Template:db doc usage. Don't delete the individual documentation templates e.g. Template:db-a7/doc yet. We need to look over them and copy any specific information into a switch statement in db doc, and then delete them. By the way, I like your "temp" parameter in db-meta/new. (though possibly its name could be more informative. I suppose "notificationTemplate" is too long, and "nottemp" isn't much more helpful than "temp". :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 4

OK, I've finished the documentation, as far as I can tell. What do you think? If I've missed anything vital from any of the docs, add it yourself if you can work out how, or let me know and I'll do it. How are the oddball templates going? How close are we to launch? Happy‑melon 17:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're very close. I checked over the wordings again, comparing them to the CSD's. In G5 I changed "while they were banned" to "in violation of their ban" to match a change in the CSD that was done weeks ago by Od Mishehu. In G12 I added "Consider the possibility that a copy of the article on another website was obtained from Misplaced Pages" to the notes section. I'm satisfied with the wording of all the rest (except I3, for which I may propose a change to the CSD, but after the template implementation.) I'm doing stuff with the documentation now. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've gone through and fixed a lot of bugs with the documentation system; I think I might have to write a doc page for the documentation - how ironic!

If we're nearly ready to go, I just need an exhaustive list of pages to update, which I'm compiling at User:Happy-melon/sandbox5. Please add any that I've missed that need to be updated. My algorithm will simply consist of loading the text of {{db-xn/new}}, replacing "/new|"-->"|" and "/new}}"-->"}}", and then overwriting {{db-xn}} with that text. If you can see any obvious problems that that's going to cause, let me know before I start :D!! Happy‑melon 11:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a number of comments here:

1. {{db}} - should automatically alliow for the reason given by the user to arive at the reason for deletion.
2. {{db-histmerge}} - I think we should keep the old version. Since the page isn't really going to be deleted (yes, technically it is, but not really), no need for the template to look like the other CSD templates.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If a reason is specified, it is passed to the deletion reason.

Conversely, no particular reason for it to look any different. However, it's not a big problem, because it won't be broken by the update if it's not changed. I've removed it from my update list for now - we can discuss that separately. Happy‑melon 17:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon, you seem to have deleted the following G4 documentation from db doc: "|G4=
*Note that this template is only for reposting of content previously deleted via an XfD-type discussion.
*If the page was previously deleted under a different name, or in a non-obvious location (such as a 2nd or subsequent nomination), please include a link to the discussion. For example, if an article had been deleted after discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WierdName (3rd Nom) use the template as:
:* {{Db-g4|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WierdName (3rd Nom)}}" I would (mildly) prefer to keep this wording in, or if not, at least some of the idea(s) expressed here which are not fully expressed in the documentation already. Some of it is redundant and some not. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I only removed the "If the page was previously deleted under a different name, or in a non obvious location..." bit, which I felt was redundant to the explanation of the "DeletionDiscussionLink" parameter below. I've expanded this explanation to include the jist of the material removed. Happy‑melon 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't feel strongly about any of the changes I've made today (so far at least). I tried to put "autobio-warn" into a7 as an alternative template, but maybe that's not what the temp2 parameter is for. Maybe only one author warning template is allowed per template by the db-meta/new syntax.

It was until this morning, but I commandeered it for something else (parameters to be passed to the notification template) because none of the templates now offer two warning templates. I can put it back if you'd like. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not important, but probably better to put it back. Other templates might need it later. Just call the other parameter something else. I don't personally much care about autobio-warn but somebody might. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading "Author warning" to "Author notification" because when I saw "warning" in big letters I felt as if the documentation was warning the reader of the documentation about something. You may change it back if you prefer.

No, sounds good to me. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:db-i1/doc lists a number of redirects. Perhaps we just don't need that information.

All of the templates have redirects of the forms {{xN}} and {{CSD-xN}}, and usually a few wierd ones too. I think after this is over I'll take a barrowload of the really odd ones to RfD. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The current db-t3 allows a parameter named "reason" instead of providing the template name. I just implemented it that in db-t3/new and got it into the documentation.

I was really hoping we could lose that in the conversion process :D. That parameter has caused a lot of trouble here and around (see this discussion, for instance. However I admit I'm not impartial on the subject, so I'll let you or anyone who is following this discussion decide whether allowing taggers to get around the requirement of naming the mother template when tagging for CSD is acceptable. If not, we should remove the parameter. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reverted reason out and rolled back to MelonBot. :-) Fine with me. What about I9? I implemented the extra-wording parameter there too. (Though didn't get it into the documentation.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not verified that the lists of categories are the same (between old and new templates, and between templates and documentation.)Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I9 (old) also allows optional text. ... --Coppertwig (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved your code addition to the second parameter to give it different formatting. I hope you don't mind. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, but somebody might be used to using the template a certain way -- that's why I was implementing the same stuff. (What kind of creep do you call that?) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall, we seem to be on to the tidying-up exercises. Is there anything substantive we still need to say, do, or check? Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We're just tidying up. Nothing substantive. I've almost finished verifying that the categories are all consistent. I haven't added any templates to your list yet, though. they're listed above, anyway. I'll probably get to that soon. Deleting "/new" should be fine, not cause any problems. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I checked all the categories. Everything's consistent. You have all the templates on your list as far as I know. OK, you can go ahead!!!!!! (insh other editors) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is still a bug with {{db/new}}. Although the deletion log looks right (see here), the deletion screen only says "Deletion not based on a ]". Please fix this before applying the new templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. What appears in the deletion log is what appeared on the deletion confirmation screen. My own test worked fine. Happy‑melon 10:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like there is a newline character in there - doesn't show up in the logs, but messes things up on the deletion screen. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Happy‑melon 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But not for me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored and deleted your page, with no difficulties. I think it's probably a problem with your browser or cache. Happy‑melon 11:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 5

AKA Discussion of new CSD templates, as introduced 2008-03-14.

OK, all the new templates are live across Misplaced Pages. I've been watching the deletion logs, and can't see any problems (the fact that the di-series of templates consistently causes the insertion of an extra colon is no concern of ours :D!). I've fixed one bug in T3 that only appears on templates that have been in place for seven days. I think in a couple of hours we can give ourselves a well deserved pat on the back. Happy‑melon 11:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to have lost one element of {{db-u1}}: It won't categorize pages in CAT:CSD if they belong to the User talk: namespace and there is no rationale. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in the vast amount of discussion above we saw that and decided that it was just asking for pages to be tagged and forgotten about, never to be dealt with. The huge number of User talk pages that have just appeared at CAT:CSD is, I think, confirmation of this. Happy‑melon 11:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A not too important question about preserving edit histories: I see that the new templates were created on "/new" pages. I assume that they were copied from the original templates then edited (i.e. that they weren't created from whole cloth). Then when they were ready they were copied to the regular page. But looking at the history of (e.g.) db-meta I don't seen any mention of the edit histories that occurred on the /new pages. The appearance is that Happy-melon is the only editor who made the last change. Wouldn't it be more proper for the history to say "copied from db-meta/new" so that anyone reading the history would know that there is more edit history on a different page? Sbowers3 (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We could always merge the histories - I think they're almost entirely non-overlapping. It's just a bit of a pain. Happy‑melon 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a full merge of the histories because I imagine that would be a pain. But it might be good for the histories to have an edit summary that pointed to the /new pages. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to do it by having an edit summary pointing to the /new pages. I think the /new pages should eventually be deleted. I suggest either merging the edit histories, or else doing a null edit with an edit summary which lists the names of the contributors. Note that there may be contributors to the new wording (e.g. Moonriddengirl, and in a few cases others) who may not currently be attributed in the /new templates but whose contributions may be evident at the discussion subpages. If it's decided to do it via edit summary rather than merging the edit histories I would be willing to do some or all of the work. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we want people to be able to write their own reasons like this? Maybe when the resaon parameter is used, extra words should be added making it clear that this is not one of the standard template wordings. (Or maybe admins are quite smart enough to see that for themselves). --Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that {{delete}}, or {{db}} I should say, was completely useless for exactly that reason. But the overwhelming consensus seems to be (or seemed to be at the time of its several TfDs) that no wikimedia project could be complete without a template to request deletion at Template:Delete or its translated equivalent. Happy‑melon 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the templates don't have the ability to explain why the tagger thinks it fits the criterion, I've used {{db-reason}} (aka {{db}}) before simply because the particular tag available for the applicable criterion was too inflexible.--Doug. 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Most/all admins check the history prior to deletion or removing tags, and I always look to see if the nominator has left an additional note in their edit summary, which is fairly common. Happy‑melon 13:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the following wording be added to db, as italic, non-bolded wording immediately after the tagger's reason, i.e. passed in as parameter 2 to db-meta: "(custom wording by tagger.) For valid criteria, see CSD."

Thanks to Happy-melon for copying the new versions of the templates into place, and thanks to all who participated in developing the new versions of the templates: Moonriddengirl, Happy-melon, Od Mishehu, Ozzieboy, Allstarecho, N, White Cat and R'n'B. The deletion log looks great: it's cool that those are the words we put in. I think you're quite right, Happy-melon, that the wording in the deletion log summaries needs to be short; otherwise the deletion log would be clogged up and repetitive. Detailed wording isn't needed at that stage, and the link to the whole criterion is given, anyway. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to CSD G4 (or possibly better as an entirely new criterion)

At present, G4 applies only to recreation after an AfD. It doesn't address the situation where an opponent of the deletion creates a copy of the article under a different name during the AfD.

At present such cases are typically redirected to the original page that they are a copy of, and either the resulting redirect deleted by CSD R1 after the article has been deleted, or if the AfD fails deleted by PROD as a duplicate of another article.

Whilst such antics could well be regarded as vandalism deletable under CSD G3, it would seem sensible to expand G4 accordingly

Suggested text

The criterion should be reworded as follows (additional text show in italics)

Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, or currently subject to such a discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version (or version proposed for deletion) and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

Discussion

I'm not sure I like this change. As is, an article that is recreated during the discussion, and the article itself is deleted, then the subarticle may be deleted or is. Your text, however, could prohibit any sort of copying of the text during the discussion, and I'm not sure I like that.

Also, we should amend G4 to include images deleted via WP:PUI. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can envisage a scenario that would be problematic. G4 doesn't apply to recreation in user space, and only applies to copies that are substantially identical, so it wouldn't cover merging parts of the content into other articles. As far as I can see, it would only catch the practice of creating a duplicate article in mainspace with the intention of frustrating an AfD. However, I am very open to tweaking things to ensure that we don't get unintended consequences. I feel that there is an issue to be addressed here, and that it is the sort of issue that is usually addressed via CSD, so feel free to suggest improvements.

I wholeheartedly agree that WP:PUI should come withing the scope of G4 Mayalld (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Copies of articles created in the mainspace are usually deleted anyway - frequently under G3 - so there is no need for this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

C1 (empty categories)

Obvious question, and I apologise if it's been raised before, but is there any way of telling whether a category has been empty for four days? Or do we just check its empty now, and assume good faith on the part of the nominator? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 11:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for the most part, although there are two checks that can be done: (1) checking the date of the category's creation to see whether it has existed for at least 4 days, and (2) checking the edit history of the person who tagged the category for deletion in order to determine whether they emptied the category shortly before tagging it. Black Falcon 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point though. Via an MfD I've identified a category that had only itself and a userbox in it. If the userbox is deleted (and it likely will be since no one is using it), the category will be empty (the userbox was responsible for the loop). There will be no record (except deep in my edit history where I killed the loop), since the box was transcluded as there will be only a redlink of the box on the page. In that case it may be just housekeeping, but the point is that you often can't tell. Maybe such tags should be dated like image tags to tell when they expire. It would be a lot simpler for editors to be able to tag the page when they find it rather than coming back in 4 days. And nobody wants to go through 4 or more days of edit history since you can't limit it to the cat namespace.--Doug. 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A category like you describe would be eligible for WP:CSD#C3 (populated by a deleted template) as soon as the template is deleted. Happy‑melon 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Good point! But the issue still remains for those that are populated otherwise, since there is no edit to the cat page involved in making it empty.--Doug. 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vague guidelines that apply to CSD and A7

See this discussion . The guideline is very unclear ,its my interpretation that A7 does not apply to CSD at all and have been told as much by mods in the past , Bardcom is reading it the other way , can someone in the know clear this up and maybe tidy up the non criteria Gnevin (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing but

1) A7 not applying to CSD is nonsensical because A7 is one of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, that's how it got the name A7.

2) A7 is not the same as a claim of "doesn't meet WP:N". Here's an example: Consider an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7. Now let's say you look at the references and find that he was a candidate from an inconsequential branch of the party and he received a total of 3 popular votes all in his home town and zero electoral votes and he was not covered in any national or regional media but since the East Anytown Daily with a total readership in 1920 of 300, is now archived on the internet, you were able to find this information. He's probably not notable and you should AFD the article. (Or, in some cases WP:PROD it).

3) On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability.

Understand?--Doug. 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but i would suggest this is very unclear still, i would suggest changing

1. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

1. Notability. Articles that make no claim to notability at all , are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject as per A7.

Consider an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7. On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability. Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you are suggesting be changed to what.--Doug. 06:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria be changed to

1. Notability. Articles that make no claim to notability at all , are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject as per A7.

Consider this example an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7.

On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability and is eligible for A7 Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008

• Well, I technically mis-stated them above as you've noted, the examples should use the words "importance or significance", but I think we treat those as essentially the same as notability as far as the assertion goes. I'm not sure that even I can parse this to the point that and assertion of importance or significance means something less than an assertion of notability. What I can tell you is that the assertion of either does not equal notability and the lack of notability does not equal the lack of an assertion thereof. Are you suggesting that we should include the example? I made it up as I typed, maybe it should be thought through a little more if it's going to be actually used.--Doug. 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should include the examples if not the one's you suggested some examples .

You said I'm not sure that even I can parse this to the point that and assertion of importance or significance means something less than an assertion of notability however i'm not sure that this is the issue i think the guideline is trying to state that any assertion of importance,significance or notability should go to AFD and only an example likeJim is from Ireland he is 10 where no assertion of importance,significance or notability is made should apply for speedy Gnevin (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that I see them as one and the same. One equals the other. What we probably ought to do is italicize the word assertion in the criterion description, and maybe remove the sentence that essentially says it has nothing to do with notability since that just confuses the issue.--Doug. 18:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you porvide an example of the new wording ? Gnevin (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Userspace subpages of banned users?

There is no criteria for deletion of userspace subpages of banned users. Should there be? Note that I am not referring to the main user page or talk page (which are typically marked with {{banned user}}, per WP:Banning policy), but to sandbox pages or other personal work pages. I think there should be a U4 category for them, as the alternative (WP:MFD) seems like overkill for this situation, and G5 only applies to pages newly created after the ban. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly opposed to adding a new criterion, since it seems to cover uncontroversial cases, but perhaps PROD deletion suffices for these types of situations. Black Falcon 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that is sometimes those banned editors have supporters who can remove the prod tag for no other reason than ILIKEIT, and we're back to requiring MFD. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is this: Template:Temporary userpage. I have deleted troll trophy userpages a while after they were indef blocked many times and nobody has ever complained. _(1 == 2) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PROD is only available for user pages for users with no recent edits AND few or no contributions to the encyclopedia. . As GRBerry notes below, most banned users have made substantial contributions, so PRODing their sub-pages is not appropriate. Other than throwing them down the memory hole, is there a reason to delete non-disruptive user sub-pages for banned users? Dsmdgold (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of WP:Deny recognition, although that particular essay is more about short-term vandals than banned editors with long-term contributions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There probably shouldn't be a special speedy criteria. I think this rule fails the test of "do all pages meeting this criteria merit deletion and would those deletions be non-controversial". Subpages created by sockpuppets after a user is banned are already speedy deletable, so the criteria would only cover those created before they are banned. At that time, they were contributors in good standing and were probably making valuable contributions, and may well have subpages reflecting their valuable work. (Very few users who last long enough to be banned, as opposed to merely blocked, lack a body of valuable contributions.) The average garden variety troll doesn't last long enough to be banned. GRBerry 19:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a new criteria for them. I can't think of any page that warrants deletion just because its author has been banned. Lets say Admin X writes an essay about Misplaced Pages in his userspace. Some time later, Admin X is banned by ArbCom (for some particularly outrageous and unforgivable something). What about Admin X's banning makes the essay worth deleting? The key in pretty much everything on Misplaced Pages is that the content is more important than the author. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true. If material is clearly useless, it can be uncontroversially deleted through a (probably quiet) MfD. Happy‑melon 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• {{temporary userpage}} is for slow summary deletion of indefinite blocks only (which I realize is what User:Until(1 == 2) is using it for) but I even question it's value there - certainly it should not be expanded to include bannned users. That template and {{indefblocked}} both fill Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages which is specifically designed for userpages of indefinitely blocked users. As an aside, I've seen another user use {{temporary userpage}} for summary deletion userpages of inactive users - which I think is way beyond the purpose and I'm not quite sure what to do about that. Nobody seems to manage that template like speedies are handled here.--Doug. 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just stick the category into the banned user template and see if anyone objects. I have seen more than once on anti-Misplaced Pages forums links to trophy userpages "owned" by banned users(read timecop and colscott). _(1 == 2) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, sounds reasonable, can we just change the template to say idefinitely blocked or banned user and fix the cats. I just don't think we should tinker with {{temporary userpage}} - because it gets misused - I don't particularly care about {{indefblocked}} which has a clearer usage.--Doug. 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

R2 - shortcuts to user pages

For quite a while, shortcuts that start with WP: and point to user pages could be deleted under R2 (for example, if I made WP:CBM redirect to User:CBM). Now that WP: is an abbreviation for Misplaced Pages:, these no longer literally qualify. Has this been discussed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP: was a pseudo-namespace and not considered part of the article namespace. Such redirects should not have been deleted under R2. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite being relatively well versed in WP deletion policy, I have never heard that argument put forward before. WP: was, until recently, in namespace 0, and fell under R2. Indeed, an important motivation for aliasing WP: to Misplaced Pages: was to remove the issue of these being cross-namespace redirects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's no longer possible to easily create the page WP:CBM, or navigate to it, how is CSD's take on their deletion relevant? Happy‑melon 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The page would now be created at Misplaced Pages:CBM, which by bad luck is now excluded from CSD:R2, but isn't any more reasonable than before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're basically saying "should R2 cover redirects from projectspace to userspace? My opinion would be "yes", as I can't think of any situation where such links would be useful. Happy‑melon 19:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

These occasionally get nominated at WP:RFD. Most usually are deleted, but a number have survived. WP:VPRF is one where the community overwhelmingly thought it was useful. I see no reason to speedy them. Any problematic ones can be handled by RFD. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on WP:50k below. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While it was in namespace 0, it was defined as a pseudo-namespace. See Misplaced Pages:Namespace which lists more. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but I have never seen written documentation of the claim that pseudo namespaces are excluded from R2. At the moment CSD doesn't mention pseudo namespaces in any way. If I made CAT:FOO redirect to a user page, that qualify under R2 as "a redirect from article space." That's why it's odd that WP:FOO would no longer qualify, even though CAT:FOO would.

There are a few exceptions to R2, it's true, but I think they are all for pages that could be in the Misplaced Pages space anyway (like Vandalproof). — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The pseudonamespace WP was explicitly excluded from criterion R2 in the early wording and in the long-standing understanding of that case. R2 was created to permit the automatic deletion of the redirect that gets left behind after userfication of a page. The intent was to eliminate any possibility of confusion among readers who might not notice that they'd been switched from an encyclopedia article to a vanity userpage. (R2 could also be used if someone maliciously created a redirect from the article space to a userpage but that would already be deletable as vandalism.) WP:-based redirects were never appropriate to delete under R2 because there is no possibility of confusion between the destination and an article. On the other hand, essays and guidelines often move quite fluidly in and out of the userspace. Some of our best and most heavily referenced essays are still in the userspace. People give them shortcuts because they are useful. Applying some legalistic definition of R2 in order to speedy-delete to those useful shortcuts was never appropriate. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the argument against deletion is equally legalistic - that, because this is a "pseudo namespace", the redirect isn't "really" a cross-namespace redirect. A WP: prefix should, with very few exceptions, indicate a page in the Misplaced Pages namespace, since "WP" is an abbreviation for "Misplaced Pages", not an abbreviation for "Shortcut". WP: prefixes aren't really appropriate for permanent userspace essays, especially since it's trivial to put the essay in wikipedia space if it is so commonly cited that it needs a shortcut. In practice, very few essays move out of wikipedia namespace once they are in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of redirects from WP:x to User space are the result of essays being userfied. Many of these essays are frequently referred to during process discussions - and the easiest way to refer to these essays is to use a shortcut. I admit to being slightly biased on this subject, as one of my user pages (User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people) is just such an essay, and a quick look at its "whatlinkshere" will show that its shortcut WP:50k is heavily used (and was, in fact, the subject of a RfD which was defeated for just that reason). For this reason I'd oppose any move to include "WP-space" in R2. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

At least I figured out why I was so confused - the "except for WP:" clause was added after I learned the criterion. So I do see why other people are used to it. But I'll maintain that it ignores the spirit of R2, which is that user pages are should not be passed off as other sorts of pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

An other reason not to include shortcuts ito the userspace in R2: There are some bot-generated lists in the userspace of the bots or their owners (such as WP:PRODSUM, WP:PERTABLE) - shortcuts to these is very useful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Standardisation of CSD warning templates

I suggest replacing all the CSD warning templates with one template, and passing in the criterion e.g. "G1" as a parameter, based on which it selects a summary of the reason for deletion using a switch statement. Other parameters could be allowed, e.g. "G6-A", "G6-B" etc. for more detailed subcriteria. An option to pass in arbitrary wording could be provided. I can write such a template, I believe. (It may require modification of how the "temp" parameter is implemented in db-meta/new.) --Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is ugh!! That is the most horrible collection of templates I think I've ever seen. You're welcome to work on a new template - it's not something I have much interest in - but remember that it'll have to substitute cleanly, so the syntax will probably be a bit of a mess (lots of <includeonly>subst:</includeonly>). Can I suggest that we get the implementation of the new CSD templates out the way first - it's beginning to suffer from mission creep. Happy‑melon 18:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK -- I'll hold off attempting it until the CSD templates are implemented. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are also times when the same CSD has a number of templates (see G6 and A7). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The parameter passed in can be usually just the criterion e.g. G1, and in more complex cases can be G6-A, G6-B etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an actual crticism of a particular template then please state your case. Lumping them all together and saying these are bad is unparticularized and opaque and I see no analysis whatever. Some have been vetted over a long period of time, with language collaborated on by many different users, fought over and debated to reach consensus. The very opposite of what you are proposing is crucial: CSD warning/notice templates must be particularized so that users are given relevant disclosure of the reason for tagging. New users confronted with a tagged article are so often confused. A warning notice which tells them the actual reason for deletion, and in many cases, what they can do about it, not just generically, but to address the actual basis for tagging, avoids a great deal of flailing around which causes collateral drama and damage, hurt feelings, work for others, sometimes results in saved articles, even keeps users that might otherwise have left and so on. You are likely not aware of it, but all of the -notice templates are for Twinkle usage, made to function properly with that program. Once use of that program began to account for a great portion of the tagging going on, great pains were taken to make sure a template existed for every CSD criterion and which carefully tracked that criterion. These were created for the specific purpose of avoiding what you appear to be proposing: generic warnings. See Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates. Making a generic template that just links to the CSD section it is tagged under would be an awful plummet backwards. That is not to say that all templates in this category are fine. There may be some that are now defunct, poorly worded, etc. Again, a case-by-case analysis is needed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points here, although I think you may misunderstand a few others. Certainly I also do not want to see a regression to or towards "your article has been listed for WP:CSD#G1. See WP:CSD#G1 for more details". I don't think it will be possible to combine them all into a single template while still making it possible to substitute it practically. However, there is truth in the claim that the templates need work. With the CSD templates now standardised at {{db-xN}}, for instance, there is no reason why its corresponding warning template shouldn't be located at {{db-xN-warning}}. That would make it much easier for automated tools to handle tagging and notification. As I've said in a thread below, they desperately need to be standardised WRT signature inclusion, parameter formatting, etc. so while I agree that one template is perhaps not the best way to proceed, but there is certainly a lot of work that can be done to improve the system, in suitable collaboration with the Twinkle admins, etc. Happy‑melon 12:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, I think you misunderstand what I was proposing. I guess I didn't explain it very well.

However, I've just looked into the situation a bit and I see that much of what I was proposing has already been implemented a long time ago as Template:db-notice. I therefore propose simply that the wording and look of the templates be kept just as it is (unless there's any reason to change anything) but that more of the code be shifted into db-notice, including moving the individual wordings into db-notice so that a simpler parameter (in many cases simply the CSD criterion alphnumeric label) can be passed in to select the appropriate wording. I don't see why this wouldn't work. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Modification to criterion A7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Current wording

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

Proposed Wording

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. Time required between article tagging, and the execution of the deletion is one hour.

*New text in bold.

Discussion

I've added the text "Time required between article tagging, and the execution of the deletion is one hour. ". The rationale for this: We don't really want to bite editors, which is what a CSD tag feels like. Additionally, editors need time to meet the requirement. Time ti write. One hour should be plenty. I propose this change, and a slight modification to the a7 tag to meet this new proposed changed. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose such a change. There's no reason for an article like "Johnny Foote is the hottest boy in Your High School!" or "Joe Light is the greatest biology teacher at Your High School" to be sitting around for an hour. Metros (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• I also oppose this because the editor can place {{hangon}} to the article instead. Malinaccier (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, and then comes the issue with authors removing speedy tags from articles they created, and then re-setting the deletion period. It can also make it hard for the user who tagged the article as they would have to continualy re-tagg until the hour is up. Not the mention how backloged CAT:SPEEDY would be. Tiptoety 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Also oppose - however I would like to separately suggest that when maintaining CAT:CSD, admins should respect the hangon tag - I've seen (and been victim to) deletions where it's clear that author was in the process of writing a hangon rationale when the page was deleted. Hangon tags should be given at least an hour's leeway. But, 99% of A7 articles won't be improved in the space of one hour, and as Metros says, I can see no reason to leave them lying around. Happy‑melon 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• No. While there are technically ways to arrange this it would just create another backlog.Genisock2 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Also oppose. Does this mean an administrator must tag the article then wait an hour? 50% of the A7's are "Tommy Smack is a 12 year old kid from Wisconsin. He plays soccer...". We'd have to wait an hour on that? The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Also oppose. 90% of what gets deleted as A7 is obvious instant-delete material. For the other 10%, admins are already willing and able to give some leeway. -- The Anome (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, since this, after all, is speedy deletion. Most administrators are sane, (<humor> The WP:RfA process reduces this slightly, but that's beside the point </humor>), and will know to delete quickly most of the obvious deletions, while giving the borderline cases more time. ffm 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the vast majority of A7s are just not going to be improved at all in this time period. Editors can have as much time to write as they want, either through using the preview button or by creating a draft version in userspace. Hut 8.5 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - how about we trust admins for a change? As for ignoring hangons - generally you can tell whether or not the rationale is going to be any good without actually waiting for them to give it. --Tango (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. What's to stop the hangon template? Talking to the admin? Asking for an undelete? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Everything I tag tends to be junk, and I'm finding more and more often even warning them about the fact that their 'article' is going to be deleted just means I now have to watch the article for tag reversions by the author. HalfShadow (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment We could just as easily delete the student pranks as vandalism--we do not need A7 for them. What we really need is some way of characterising the facebook-type material to speedy delete it under a rule that does not apply to other things. My experience with A7 here does not support the experience of some of my fellow administrators here. Agreed, most admins do it right. Not all do. In recent non-systematic looks at the deletion log, i have been seeing increasing carelessness here, including deciding correctly that something should be deleted, but then using any deletion rationale however inappropriate to the article. At this point,I wouldnt say 90% do it right, & certainly not 99%. Further, tagging will throw off a newby even if an admin later declines the speedy. some of the comments here assume great sophistication in newbys. My feeling is that our survival requires the active encouragement & gentle education of the unsophisticated. In recent passes at AfD, I have found myself declining an increasing proportion of material. I'd like to suggest a modified change, to see how it works: that the waiting period apply to empty and no-context, A1 and A3.----and that it be one day, not one hour. A1 and A3 are never really that much in need of speedy action as some A7s. DGG (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree here, I'll rethink this as I edit more. If I can think of something better I'll post here in a new section. Perhaps a new criterion, or a re working of the criterion are needed. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ideas: To get over the problem of authors reverting the speedy tag: instead of just adding a speedy tag to an article, the tagger could add the article to a (semi-protected) list of articles to be deleted, or perhaps some other method could be used to keep track of them; a bot could maintain a list, perhaps. Maybe there's some way to maintain a page such that anyone can add a pagename to a list on it, but only admins or only a bot can delete them from the list. A bot could keep checking the list and re-reverting unauthorized removals from it.
  Instead of requiring one hour from tagging to deletion, we could require one hour (or 30 minutes, or 15 minutes) from page creation to tagging. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've also seen lots of cases where articles that turn out to be on notable topics get tagged for speedy-deletion because a person outside the field didn't understand they were notable. I personally think that "Joe Schmoe Rocks!!!" can be speedy-deleted under some other category (e.g. vandalism) and that for articles at the grey edge of the A7 category -- articles on subjects which aren't obvious vandalism or patently non-notable but just simply don't make clear why the subject is notable -- we ought to have a waiting period and a slower process. I believe there really are two distinct kinds of articles that tend to get put under A7, I agree that the importance-not-clear articles tend to have a lot more error cases than the obvious-vandalism ones, and I agree that Misplaced Pages would be better off if they were put under two different categories and treated differently. If an article isn't vandalism but is simply a subject where the description doesn't adequately explaim the subject's importance, giving the author an opportunity to clarify is usually better than simply deleting on sight, even though the majority of the time (but not always) the borderline articles will end up being deleted anyway. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose the change. I agree that it does feel like biting. I've found some of the welcome templates which point to common mistakes can help to soften the blow. At the end of the day there are some awful vanity and such pages that should be gone as soon as they go up, but if an editor wants to debate it that's why we have the hangon tag.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Wow, that was a bit more participation than I had initially expected. I understand that this is not the way to go for the reasons above. Thank you folks for cluing me in. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what Misplaced Pages is all about. You try something, people disagree with you, you listen to their comments, and everyone learns a little as a result. Happy‑melon 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Amendment of G4

I believe we should amend G4 to include images deleted at WP:PUI. I propose the rewording to be A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion or possibly unfree images, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This seems to be common sense: if an administrator has decided something is probably a copyright violation, it should stay that way. Please note that this policy has worked well on commons before, and I can't really think of any reason not to include it here. However, I have seen it be an issue in the past, where an image is continually re-uploaded. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If they've been deleted at PUI, that would be under WP:CSD#I9. If they're uploaded again, they can be deleted under I9 again. Simple :D. No need to change anything, as they're already covered. Happy‑melon 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiding all CSD categories except the main one

I think that all the CSD categories, except the main one (Category:Candidates for speedy deletion) should be hidden. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This would make it more like other maintenance categories- the base category isn't hidden, subcategories are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A7 question

Should {{db-notability}} really link to the A7 template when the description of A7 includes "This is distinct from questions of notability", surely this just has the potential to confuse people and lead to the criterion being misused. Guest9999 (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I will support anyone who takes a redirect to a CSD template to RfD (seriously, check out Category:Speedy deletion templates - we have plenty to go around!), so go ahead if you think it's inappropriate. Happy‑melon 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Tags on Articles at AfD

I recently had a discussion with another editor about the merits of keeping a speedy deletion tag on an article during an AfD debate. Is there a consensus on keeping speedy tags on articles while they are being debated? I personally think it would better serve the community to remove the speedy tags during an AfD debate as a matter of courtesy to both admins searching for speedy deletion candidates and editors / admins debating the article at AfD. Any thoughts on the matter?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. I see three scenarios, all of which seem pretty simple to me and all of which result in the removal of the speedy-tag one way or the other.

1. If the speedy-deletion criterion clearly does not apply, then it should be removed regardless of the AFD. Any good-faith editor can do so.
2. If the application of the speedy-deletion criterion is ambiguous, it should not have been applied in the first place and the AFD discussion is the right answer. Again, any good-faith editor can fix the mistake.
3. If the speedy-deletion criterion clearly applies, then the AFD discussion is moot. The page get's deleted (taking the tag with it) and the AFD administratively closed.

What am I missing here? Rossami (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much. I'd have worded the response differently though. No, it is not appropriate to remove a speedy tag because there is an AFD underway. Some articles under AFD are discovered, or thought in good faith, to merit speedy deletion - sometimes the AFd causes someone to realize this. An example would be an AFD regular noticing "hey, we just got rid of this at title X" and tagging for G4. If so, the speedy deletion should occur and then the AFD be closed. If it is unclear whether or not speedy should occur, post a hangon and let the processing admin decide. If it is clear that the speedy deletion criteria does not apply, then the speedy tag should be removed because the criteria doesn't apply. In short - the AFD is never a reason to remove a speedy tag (this is different from the rule for PROD tags). GRBerry 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

the question, obviously, is about Rossami's case no. 2. In ambiguous cases, where the matter is under discussion at AfD & is not blindingly obvious, I have often been been removing the tags, since speedy is for unambiguous deletions only. DGG (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about section 2 and I appreciate the comments. This has been helpful.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes

I was wondering what people might think about having blatent hoaxes fall under G2 rather than G3; assuming good faith a hoax is just as likely to be a test as it is vandalism and it seems kind of harsh to tag what are likely new users who don't really understand Misplaced Pages as vandals. Any thoughts? Guest9999 (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure... the difference between testing and vandalism is simply the amount of good faith you assume. I think that most (but not all) blatant hoaxes are in bad faith though (although that is ultimately a judgment call). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between G2 and G3 does not concern me. My concern is that too many "blatant" hoaxes are neither blatant nor even hoaxes sometimes. Suspected hoaxes really should go through AFD. They should not be speedy-deleted unless there is strong supporting evidence such as a pattern of vandalism and other patently bad-faith edits by the contributor. (Which, I suppose, is an argument that vandalism is the better tag if only as a reminder that the bar for hoaxes is very high.) Rossami (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on use of criteria I2 empty image

The file File:Birlinn Limited.pdf has been uploaded by User:Birlinn. It is a pdf containing text about the company Birlinn Limited. Although it is not "empty", it is not an image either, and not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Can it be speedied under I2? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with this material is that it is not easily editable by other users, which runs counter to the fundamental wiki ethos. I suggest you ask that the uploader instead adds the text to the Birlinn Limited article, whereupon it can be edited by other users. Once that edit has been made (and obviously User:Birlinn needs to do it, the pdf should be deleted under G6 or I1. Happy‑melon 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

While the image question is an interesting theoretical one, I believe that page can be deleted as a clear copyright violation (though perhaps not speedily). A google search for an exact match of the first line returned a hit to a copyrighted page. It's possible (especially given the uploader's chosen username) that the author intends release but to my limited knowledge, the required confirmations have not been sent to the Foundation confirming release. Between that and the probably conflict of interest issues, this page does not seem like a page we should keep around. Rossami (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible problem with I3 notice template

When I used the notice template provided {{subst:idw-noncom|(PAGENAME)|header=1}} ~~~~ it had a few issues. The "Image:" prefix was left out in the heading and the body of the message so it lead to a red link and the message was signed twice. Did I do something wrong or is it a problem with the template? Guest9999 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a template problem. I've fixed the namespace omission, that one's easy. The signatures less so. Because these templates were recently standardised, there's no guarrantee that all the warning templates (which are not standardised in any way shape or form :D) are similarly standardised with respect to whether they include the signature tildes in the substituted code. Unless and until the warning templates (of which there are quite a few!), I can't make any guarrantees that you won't get duplicated signatures. If anyone is prepared to go through and make that standardisation, I would be extremely grateful (not something I could stomach myself :D!). Happy‑melon 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and action. Guest9999 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New CSD?

I saw this new CSD template create {{Db-section}}. Where is this documented? MBisanz 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh... that's a kinda stupid template. Deletion (including speedy) is something that only an administrator can do; anyone can delete a section of an article, unless it's fully protected, in which case nobody can add the tag... I'm going to be bold and delete it under G6, as it just doesn't make any sense, and the author is highly suspect. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew there were changes going on at CSD with cats and all, but that one just didn't make sense. MBisanz 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also game T2 material (blatantly wrong speedy templates going through TFD for an entire week was one reason T2 was made). Gracenotes § 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe that's a laugh! How utterly pointless :D Happy‑melon 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, G6 works just fine for both this template and the author's other contribs. All junk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Genesis of WP:SD ?

I have been looking but have not been able to find the actual origins of the Speedy Deletion policies. Was it always part of WP? If not then when did it become official policy? What events triggered its necessity? Can anyone point me to discussions / essays / etc that reflect the genesis of WP:SD? Thanks in advance. 66.102.200.100 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to look in the archives of the old Votes for Deletion and Deletion policy pages to find the true origins. The discussion began in 2004 if I remember correctly (though earlier descriptions of the problem were going on in 2003). Speedy-deletion was proposed as an answer to the perceived problem of unmanagable growth of the "normal" deletion process (which was then the only process). Every page got days of discussion by a significant number of people and carried a significant degree of process overhead.
People started recognizing patterns - categories of pages which inevitably received unanimous consensus to delete - and asking if the administrative costs of the discussion-based process were necessary in those cases. After a great deal of discussion about whether this was a good idea, the community did find a small number of narrowly defined cases where we conceded that deletion was always the right answer. The categories have evolved some since then but the principle still applies. CSD categories are narrowly defined such that essentially every good-faith editor with a modicum of experience would agree that the project is better off without that page. If the case is in any way controversial or if the page doesn't fit one of the narrowly-defined cases, the old discussion-based process applies. Rossami (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just going along with that, WP:PROD was created to lighten the AfD process, as CSD was created to lighten the deletion process. It's necessity is made quite apparent, looking at Special:Newpages :) Justin_(u) 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What in hell is wrong with you people?

Look at this edit.

Lately people who spend their time marking pages for speedy deletion have become unbelievably irrational. TWO MINUTES after this article was created by a Wikipedian who is also a world-famous researcher, it was marked for speedy deletion. There wasn't even a hint of a reason for that. "Gee, 'mathematics'? What's that?? Never heard of it! Delete!" It really doesn't make it easy to "assume good faith" when you see something like this. The article got deleted. Shortly thereafter, it was restored. If the Wikipedian who created it had been a newbie, he probably would have gone away and never come back. Why has the speedy-deletion crowd lately started trying SO HARD to convince us that they're all a bunch of morons, lunatics, and juvenile delinquents?

This edit is the most offensive and idiotic edit ever done on Misplaced Pages. Speedy deletion as spam! The page was created at a time when Misplaced Pages was unknown and the web site that the article linked to was famous and regarded as the leading authority on its topic on the web. Obviously, there could have been no interest in using the unknown Misplaced Pages to advertise such a famous web site. Nearly 1500 Misplaced Pages articles linked to it. Most of those links were created by professionals who had expertise in the subject and no interest at all in advertising the company that sponsors the site. There were no links to the company; only to the informational web site that the article was about. All that was crystal-clear to anyone who looked.

Why must the allegedly important job of protecting Misplaced Pages from spam be done only by people paying no attention to what they're doing, and not caring? One might LIKE to say that an edit like the one above was just a mistake, and we should forgive and forget since it's been rectified. It might even be true. But it's just impossible. No one will ever forget. Many decades from now, some historian who hasn't been born yet today will write a book about the early days of Misplaced Pages, and devote a chapter primarily to that one edit. It can't be avoided, no matter how saintly everyone is while urging to forgive and forget; that would be a case of trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you're going a bit overboard here. Was that diatribe really necessary? The nature/profession/longevity on wikipedia of an article creator is categorically irrelevant when the article is written as it was in the diff your provided. If it meets the SD criteria, it gets tagged. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think this was a wee bit on the uncivil side? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, there's always the option of improving the article instead of deleting it after 2 minutes. We're here to create and expand content, that should be the first option that's considered I'd think. RxS (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So I am going overboard. But the point of my comments above is that a lot of people are going overboard. Lately they've "improved" (a euphemism in this case) their software so that they take only two minutes to mark every article for speedy deletion unless they understand everything in it without ever having studied anything. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's right on the mark. There are people out there who make no contribution what so ever to the site but if you look at their deletion logs it's at a rate of several deletions per minute. Something about that just isn't right. Zenasprime (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Few admins are promoted who haven't been the main writer on a Featured Article or participated at ANI, UAA, RFP etc, for many months. Believe me, the admin bit is not something you just ask for and receive. Happy‑melon 09:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

<EC>Well, maybe Michael you aren't being so unreasonable. Like Strangelove says, it might be better to improve rather than delete. See below. Dlohcierekim 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

At least look into improvement, I know that a lot of crap comes through but there's no damage done if an article sits untagged for 8 minutes instead of 2 or 3. I know it's easier to tag something right out of the chute but any or all of three things may happen when people don't dig a little: You make someone else do the quick research work before possible deletion, a legitimate article gets deleted and/or a newbie gets bitten. It's not a race, right? RxS (talk)

The two tags here were evidently in error, but neither was deleted, which to me suggests that the system is not working so badly. In the first case, the references should have suggested that this was not an article to be deleted out of hand, and the admin making the decisions caught this; the second case was plainly absurd and reverted quickly. It is difficult to regulate the quality of article tagging because anyone can do it, but hopefully the admins who are pushing the button are being a bit more careful. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we were discussing the idea of delayed speedy tags (for notability) at one point, but I can't remember what talk page it was on. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V, if I remember correctly. Happy‑melon 09:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it, it was Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28#Time switch. Seems the discussion on it died down, but I still think it's a great idea that would help issues like this. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points, Michael. Near the top of this page it says, "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." I would like to see this idea repeated within some of the CSD criteria and on the templates; I think it tends not to be noticed enough where it is. Alternatively, it could be moved closer to the top of the page and perhaps put in bold type.

Deleting and then restoring a page doesn't necessarily get the toothpaste back into the tube: consider the case of Ggggggggggggggg12, a valuable contributor who has apparently been permanently lost to the project after the user's first article was speedy-deleted. The article has been restored, but the contributor has left, with a very dim view of Misplaced Pages. And here's another example of a knowledgeable person who left Misplaced Pages when their article was deleted, even though the article was restored again: "An admin later restored my work and reprimanded that editor, but this ended my active involvement in Misplaced Pages; it simply seemed to bothersome to spend time on it."

People need to be careful. Other than attack pages and perhaps copyvios (and ?) there is no reason to rush to tag or delete articles within minutes of creation. Is it a race to get to be the one to tag or delete an article before someone else does it? Even just tags can be off-putting to an article creator. When doing new page patrol, you can look at pages that are an hour or so old. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RFA culture now places much weight on accurate C:CSD tagging. So yes, sadly, it has become a race to place the tag first. That's not good. But I'm afraid it's true. Given the ammount of G12 and, worse still, G10 pages, to restrict quick tagging is both problematical and would require a technical change to the software. This thread is deeply concerning. I believe the solution is for admins to be far slower in deleting and more willing to advise the editors who have tagged a page that they got it wrong (tactfully of course). An editor looking to seek adminship with a bunch of "speedy declined" comments on their talk page is likely to be far more circumspect and will hopefully look to WP:AFD to demonstrate policy knowledge instead. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  There is no reason for it to "become a race to place the tag first." There are thousands of non-patrolled articles more than a week old. That is more than enough time for any creator to not only demonstrate importance but also demonstrate notability through references. On New pages patrol I used to set a high offset to find the oldest non-patrolled pages. I'd regularly get up to 14,500 but the software is so slow at finding those high offsets that I switched to smaller offsets. Still it's not at all hard to switch to non-patrolled pages that are a day or two old instead of a few minutes old. It would be a big help if Special:Newpages made it easier to get a list of older non-patrolled New pages instead of by default showing the very newest New pages. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem of biting people would be reduced if more of us used templates like {{nn-warn}}. I do if I'm using automated tools. You should too! :) Sceptre 03:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Applying BLP to fictional characters

I was just getting ready to redirect an article about a fictional character to the article about the story when, "poof!" it was gone. What's worse, the creator received an attack page warning. Are we not doing a basic Google search before tagging for deletion? It can really help one make an informed decision. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy I7?

I've run across a few images that have been deleted for I7 (improper copyright tag), but have not been tagged for this fault or given a 48 hr notice before deletion (eg Image:ApolloJustice.png). I know we're under the Foundation Resolution now in terms of images, but I haven't seen anything that says we have sped up the process. Am I mistaken on this? --MASEM 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've read it, but I believe the resolution does allow us to set the grace period for such things as a part of our EDP. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And IIRC we've set the grace period at 48 hours, so immediate deletion under I7 is inappropriate. Perhaps leave a polite note on the admin's talk page? Happy‑melon 10:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a message on the user's talk page but he pointed to the last sentence of I7, in that Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time.. Technically, this was the case for the images deleted that I saw, so I see where he's coming from. So I wonder if this is the intent of this part of I7. I will note that the default image upload page does not list every non-free copyright tag, and newer users will likely not know all the various ones out there. If the sentence above is taken as word, I think it needs to be changed to allow time for users to correct it, particularly if it is simply a matter of correcting the copyright tag to the right one. If this is not the intent of that sentence, we may want to remove it. --MASEM 16:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Duplicated Topics

I've come across several articles which are just poorly written versions of established articles and there isn't really a speedy deletion criteria I can see that fits. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to handle these types of articles?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect. Simple as that. Unless the pagename is utterly ridiculous, there's no reason to delete. If the page name is ridiculous, redirect and then tag for R1 :D. (Don't actually do that or you'll be slapped for WP:GAME, use {{db-g6}} with a suitable wording= parameter). Happy‑melon 10:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing redirects, but some of these are just strange (read: repeated letters and all kinds of weird commas) spellings. I'll consider the other options. Thanks.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If Happy-melon's good suggestions of redirect or {{db-g6}} aren't useful in a specific situation, you might also consider WP:PROD or WP:AfD. You can also try contacting the creator if a page is recent and explain why it is inappropriate in a friendly way. Sometimes creators have responded to this approach by willingly placing {{db-author}} on the page. Inappropriate page gone: no fuss, no drama, no trauma. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the duplicated title is deliberately inappropriate, redirect is always the right answer. First, remember that deletion has no advantage over redirecting. We don't save any money or space by deleting a page. People say they're "cleaning up the database" but it doesn't really clean up anything.
But second, remember that even if the spelling mistake or extra comma seems weird to you, it probably made sense to the person who created the page or was a good-faith mistake. Redirecting points the original editor(s) to the correct page where their contributions will be most appreciated. Deletion can often leave those original contributors confused about where their page went and lead them to incorrectly assume that we have database stability problems.
Best of all, though, redirecting requires no discussion and no administrative overhead. You can do it in a single edit. Even the fastest of the alternatives above requires 4-5 times the effort. This is what redirects are for. Rossami (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, more excellent pointers by all.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

• Redirect is not always the right answer; sometimes "merge" is.
• PLEASE don't say "a criteria". It's "a criterion". The word "criteria" is the plural.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)