Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deb (talk | contribs) at 12:09, 29 December 2022 (→‎Quantifying "few or no other edits" in U5). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Formerly untitled/upcoming media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Before films, TV shows, video games, and books receive a title or get released, their articles/drafts are usually titled Untitled _____ film, Upcoming _____ film, _____ (upcoming film), etc. In most cases, a redirect is left behind at those titles once that project receives a title or is released, which is misleading, unhelpful, and useless to readers since the project in question is no longer untitled or upcoming. These redirects are often taken to RfD ([1], [2]), and virtually all of those discussions end with a "delete" outcome, demonstrating clear consensus. I propose that there be a new speedy deletion criterion for redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming" which point to works that are no longer untitled or upcoming. Exceptions should be made for redirects with a non-trivial page history, per WP:CSD § Other issues with redirects, as well as redirects with incoming links. Page views should not be a problem here, as many redirects that are speedily deleted have a fair number of page views. Please note that a similar but broader proposal was made two years ago, which received minimal response. I believe this new proposal addresses most of the sole objector's concerns. Pinging @Steel1943, who gave me this idea at a recent RfD discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How frequent is this, really? There's currently 717 redirects in mainspace starting with 'Untitled ' or 'Upcoming ' or containing '(untitled' or '(upcoming', and 95 mainspace pages with such titles deleted so far this year. (Are there any major patterns I'm missing?) Extending the time cutoff for deleted redirects back to the start of 2020 only increases the count to 312, so if anything it's higher than typical this year. I'm a lot more comfortable with proposed new criteria that would average at least two or three deletions per day; the number of current criteria already makes for high cognitive load. —Cryptic 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cryptic: You'd be surprised: I've been dealing with these for almost a decade now, and I'd say on average, there's about 25-50 created a year that have this issue. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes - I just finished saying there's been 312 deleted in about the last 2⅔ years, so 117 a year. That doesn't seem like it's overburdening RFD, even if nominations there didn't default to delete and even if they couldn't be mass-nominated once or twice a year. Something on the order of 750-1000 such redirects per year very well could. —Cryptic 22:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to seem dismissive; I just want to be sure I'm not underestimating the problem. Even extending the pattern to "any title containing 'ntitled' or 'pcoming' anywhere" only increases the count by about 10%, and there's some glaring false positives in there like I am entitled to my opinion. —Cryptic 22:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cryptic: Yeah, I read only a part of your comment, then got distracted with real life matters and didn't correct myself. And agreed, I may have been pinged above, but some of the recent situations I have found where it's not so cut and dry make me wonder, and am on the fence a bit, more for support but still not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that this is just your opinion, but "averages two or three deletions per day" is not a requirement for speedy deletion criteria. The point of speedy deletion is so we don't need to waste other editors' time with RfDs, and per the search results I linked there has already been at least a dozen of these this year alone. Seems like a big waste of time to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point three of the WP:NEWCSD requirements, included in the orange box at the top of this page, is "Frequent" which says in part If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead.. There is no objective definition of what is and isn't "frequent", but I'm leaning towards agreeing with Cryptic that this isn't. It isn't worth spending much time discussing this imo though as the proposal as written unambiguously fails point 2 (uncontestable) and I can't think of any way of writing an objective (point 1) criterion that doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. As I commented on one recent discussion, these do generally get deleted but it is important that they are not deleted too soon, so that while people still look for them that the untitled/upcoming title they are taken to the content (one of the main reason why we routinely keep redirects from moves). How long this is varies considerably from a few weeks to many months - I've never worked out a pattern; so it requires analysis of page views, incoming links, etc. that make them completely unsuitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's the only part of your concerns I didn't address, because I really don't see why someone would include "upcoming" or "untitled" in a search term if a work has been already released or gotten a title, even if it just happened the day before. Also remember, if one types in a non-existent page title into the search bar, it doesn't take you to the redlink, it takes you to the search results page. Shouldn't be a problem for readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't see why someone would include "upcoming" or "untitled" in a search term if a work has been already released or gotten a title there are multiple reasons someone might do this, for example:
  • They don't know it now has a release date and/or title
  • They know it's got a date/title but don't know or don't remember what it is
  • They know it has a date/title and what it is but they don't know that our article has been moved
  • They know or guess that our article has been moved but don't know what title it's been moved to (the more common the title the more likely this is)
  • They have followed a link that hasn't been updated yet, this might be from another website, a search engine or bookmark
Also remember, if one types in a non-existent page title into the search bar, it doesn't take you to the redlink, it takes you to the search results page. the internal search engine is only one of many ways people use to find Wikipedia content. Depending on the combination of which method you use, the device/browser you are using and whether you have permission to create a page at that title you will get either
  • Search results
  • A message inviting you to create a page and/or search (search results are 1-2 clicks away)
  • The page creation editing interface (you have to explicitly type your search in the search box, or use your other preferred method of searching Wikipedia, there are many)
It is also far from guaranteed that search results will include the relevant page, particularly as the film will no longer be untitled and/or upcomming so those words will not be in the prose. Remember also that search engines not being updated is one reason that you might have arrived here in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, would you support this proposal if we added a "transition period" of 30 days before speedy deletion can occur? I think 30 days is reasonable enough. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, because I've noted at least twice previously how long people continue to use a redirect varies from a couple of weeks to many months with no predictable pattern. The redirects need to be kept for at least as long as they get significant amount of use, and it's simply not possible to put a numerical value on that which will always be correct, regardless of what value you choose. "Significant" is (and can only be) a subjective criterion as well as it includes considerations beyond pure numbers, such as how the figures compare with the target, e.g. if it's only getting a few hits but those are a substantial proportion of the target's viewing figures and/or the pattern of views strongly correlates with the pattern of views for the target then it's clear that it's still a significant positive for the encyclopaedia, whereas a different redirect with the same number of views but which are a tiny fraction of the target's views and there is no correlation in viewing patterns is probably providing much less benefit. I still cannot think of a way to make a speedy deletion criterion for these redirects that meets both the objective and uncontestable requirements, and others remain unconvinced it meets the frequency requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page views tends to be the most common objection on these RfD discussions, but in the end they still close as delete. The consensus is clear: it doesn't matter even if a redirect gets "significant" views, in the end it's misleading and should be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy deletion is explicitly only for matters that are not controversial - i.e. very nearly everybody agrees that everything that could be deleted by a criterion should be deleted. This is simply not the case for these redirects, for the reasons I've tried to explain to you multiple times already. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Film, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Video games, and WikiProject Books have been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not convinced this is frequent enough, and sometimes these need retargetting, not deletion. Better to go through RfD. —Kusma (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose in case anyone is counting bolded votes. —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...And tagged another 105: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming". Turns out there are a lot of these (a lot more than even the 105), extending even from as early as 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which could have been avoided if this were a speedy deletion criterion. And right now, there's also this discussion, this discussion, this, and this one, and this, and this, this, this, this, this, and this. Is that not "frequent" enough?? These discussions are just wasting everyone's time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except they aren't, because not all of them should be deleted (now), let alone speedily. One I spot checked was used over 5000 times in the last 30 days. This still fails the uncontestable requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Not convinced that this can be rapidly, objectively, decisively and correctly assessed, hence likely failing 1 and 2. Frequent? Unconvinced, fails 3. Criterion 4 is probably Ok. But the real reason I'm opposing this is the potential for administrators failing to understand the nuances of the criterion and misapplying it as if it was making WP:CRYSTAL into a CSD criterion. Hard pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • List of appropriately-named redirects. As Jclemens says, I suspect that if this passed, many of the redirects appearing early on it would end up deleted if somebody tagged them, despite pointing to works that were actually released untitled. —Cryptic 05:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The proposed wording already makes it clear that only redirects that point to works no longer untitled or upcoming apply. Not works that remain untitled, or are intentionally untitled, or have "untitled" as part of the title, or to anything else. This should be clear to InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In theory, you are right. In practice... Look, I've watched DRV for years, and seen what seems to be every possible misapplication of a CSD criteria. This is particularly dangerous because no non-admin can see anything definitively wrong, and so reporting of CSD abuses is quite scarce. I'd rather MfD kept the load. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note. user:InfiniteNexus has advertised this proposal on every current nomination at RfD (and possibly elsewhere). The notices are neutral so I have to assume good faith, but anyone evaluating consensus should be aware of this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is fully compliant with WP:APPNOTE, along the lines of The talk page of one or more directly related articles. In the interest of transparency, I have not linked this discussion to any other places other than the ones I've linked above and the WikiProjects I listed earlier. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, and it looks like Steel1943 also dropped a link at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#More "upcoming" no longer "upcoming" the other day, which is now closed (as snow delete, unsurprisingly). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus: My mention on there was in direct response to an editor who stated they were considering proposing a CSD like this, so that was not a problem. However, Thryduulf has a point here with their concern: Repeated mentions of this discussion on multiple pages, and even in several sections on the same page, could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING, so you may want to lay off doing that any more. If you really desire to advertise this discussion, consider doing it the "allowed" way: WP:RFC. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I genuinely believe the notifications I posted fall under WP:APPNOTE, but since there have been concerns from editors I'll hold off on more of those. I don't think an RfC is needed at this point, but I'm also open to that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: @InfiniteNexus: In retrospect, this discussion may have been better/clearer if it only included the "upcoming" titles and not have been bundled with the "untitled" titles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that would address Thryduulf's "still has value after some time" concern. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, although it may be better to call it "placeholder" redirects to exclude the genuine Untitled titles and include some other placeholder redirects such as "Next election" for elections that have already passed. Even the latest discussion is generating a lot of support for deletion. The only thing "saving" (and I'm using that word generously) some of these is pageviews. I would support this either way, but include a clause that they have to not have significant pageviews to delete and we'd get to where we're at 100% that are routinely deleted at RfD. That would save some significant time at RfD moving forward, which is a good thing. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you have an objective, uncontestable definition of "significant pageviews"? Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll defer to you because this is an effort to accommodate your objections. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming" offers a big hint on what you consider to be significant, and I would be okay with something in that neighborhood. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think I can sum up what I consider to be significant in simple, objective terms because it is a combination of the number of views over time, the pattern of those views (which influences the relevant time period), how long since it ceased to be untitled/upcoming and, when that is unclear, other factors such as how long since the page was moved and the pattern of views the target page gets. Even then the number of "weak" !votes and frequency of words like "probably" and "likely" in my comments should give you a clue that it's often a subjective judgement. Extremes like no views in 6 months or multiple hundreds in the last week are objectively no longer useful and still useful respectively, but the grey area in the middle is huge. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've stricken the pageview suggestion in favor of the 30-day grace period that has gathered momentum below. -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I think this discussion is missing the point that these pages should ideally not be created in the first place (or should be created more sparingly). The simple fact is that if someone, whether by a bookmark, an external link etc, links to a page on Wikipedia, then any pagemove of that page will not update any links. Unless there is some drastic change in the technology of Wikipedia this isn't going to change. Taking the attitude that it's not our problem if external links are broken is (in my opinion) missing the entire point of wikipedia, as of course nothing is anyone's problem in a voluntary project, so why should we fix factual errors or misspellings, etc? I think there needs to be an effort to choose titles which will either be more permanent (Untitled fourth Matrix film for example is at least completely unambiguous) , or have some other logical place they can be redirected to while not needed (eg Next Australian federal election could target List of Australian federal elections or Elections in Australia or ideally a section of an article explaining the procedure for determining when the next election will be). A7V2 (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's certainly not uncommon to retarget Next... redirects to more permanent targets wherever possible, and something I recommend when they come to RfD if I can find an appropriate target. It's not always possible though, especially with elections that don't happen on a predictable schedule (e.g. party leadership elections).
    I agree that "upcoming" and "untitled" pages should be better titled where possible, indeed I'd argue that consideration should be made of not creating a stand-alone article until the work has a title, but this isn't really a speedy deletion issue. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Please do this, it would be deeply helpful for many many franchise films which often start of in draftspace or mainspace as "Upcoming/untitled Foo film" before being named and released which means the space needs reusing quite often.★Trekker (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Hours of effort are often wasted at RfD going over the same arguments. I don't have sympathy for the view that deleting these redirects will break external links: users following those links will get there in the end via Wikipedia Search. 30 days after release sounds about right to me. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support with a 30-day grace period. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support we should not be keeping upcoming redirects to no longer upcoming events/media. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • People's opinions as to whether these should be deleted are irrelevant here. What matters is whether there is in fact consensus to delete them. as the actual wording of "uncontestable" says. Thus, if Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming" is closed as delete, then a speedy deletion criterion should be enacted, and if not it shouldn't be. This discussion is turning in large part into a rehash of that one. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whether that discussion closes as delete or not, that the deletion was contested by a significant proportion of commenters means that this cannot meet the incontestable requirement for a new speedy deletion criterion, even if we assume that it meets the frequency requirement (which has met significant opposition here). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Huh? What uncontestable actually says is It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. Not that said discussions have to be uncontroversial, only that they have to come to a consensus to delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only when the discussions always reach a very clear uncontroversial consensus is it possible to be certain that the consensus will always be to delete because speedy deletion is only for the most obvious cases where deletion will always be uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And now that discussion has been closed by BD2412:
The result of the discussion was delete. It is clear at this point that there is a consensus to delete "upcoming" redirects where there is no project by that name that is upcoming. Relisting has only solidified this consensus, and there is no reasonable prospect that further discussion will yield a different outcome.
That sums up the community's opinion of these redirects. I rest my case. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've challenged that closure on BD2412's talk page as I can only see a consensus to delete if all that has been done is count noses. Per other comments here from myself and others, even if the closure stands it does not make this a viable speedy deletion criterion.
Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support with some grace period. The untitled redirect is valid until the proper title is announced, but doesn't become immediately irrelevant. It's something that loses meaning with time. Jontesta (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom and discussion. If done correctly, it should easy pass all four CSD criteria, especially by establishing a solid timeframe (30 days is fine, or that can be discussed further). TNstingray (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I'd say if there needs to be a 30-day threshold sounds reasonable. For "upcoming", I think the threshold should be for after the initial "non-festival exclusive" commercial release of the subject in any region, unless there end up being no commercial release of the subject. In other words, the 30-day threshold starts immediate after any commercial release in any region ... unless it never happens, then it's 30 days after any release. For "untitled", maybe the 30-day threshold may apply 30 days after the subject is moved from the "untitled" title. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your suggested criteria is complicated enough that it would take a discussion to figure out if the redirect meets it, and at that point, might as well do RfD Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, it's just an idea of what the proposed "30-day threshold" should represent since no editor had attempted to define it yet. Otherwise, yeah, it's unclear what it was supposed to mean or represent. But, by all means, if you have a better idea of how to define a "30-day threshold" for this, by all means feel free to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We can determine the exact definition of a "30-day grace period" after the proposal passes, if ever. Right now, I believe there's general agreement for "30 days after a work releases" or "30 days after a work gets an actual title". We can wait to discuss anything more specific than that, i.e. what counts as a work being released, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Once it is no longer upcoming/untitled, there is no purpose to retaining old redirects. A short grace period is acceptable. ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I certainly understand the arguments for deleting these redirects, but I haven't actually seen a concrete proposal that would be suitable as a speedy deletion criteria. A one-size-fits-all approach will unfortunately rarely work here. Some works get tons of hype during that upcoming phase, while the announcement of the actual title is not heavily promoted, for example. Some works remain upcoming for a very long time (more than a decade sometimes) without a title. Some works are rarely known by their actual title. All of these things require discussion to determine if a deletion is appropriate, and that's what RfD is for. While this is somewhat common, it's not common enough to cause RfD to fail to function, so overall, it's best not to create this criteria. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some works get tons of hype during that upcoming phase, while the announcement of the actual title is not heavily promoted, for example. Some works remain upcoming for a very long time (more than a decade sometimes) without a title. Some works are rarely known by their actual title. – I don't understand what you mean by this. Nobody uses "Untitled _____" or "Upcoming _____" other than Wikipedia articles for formality purposes, they would use colloquial names such as "Joker 2" over "Untitled Joker sequel".
    While this is somewhat common, it's not common enough to cause RfD to fail to function – it's not causing RfD to "fail to function", but each of those almost-monthly discussions waste hours and hours of time while editors repeat the same old arguments before the redirects are unceremoniously deleted. This is exactly what is happening with all of the most recent discussions I linked above. Those hours pile into days, weeks, and months of wasted time and effort over something there is already consensus for.
    InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If days, weeks, and months of time are wasted on these, then the only explanation is that these redirects are contestable and thus a terrible fit for a speedy deletion criterion. Redirects nominated for deletion at RFD default to delete; the only person that needs spend any time at all for a truly uncontestable deletion of a redirect is the person nominating it. —Cryptic 17:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As you're aware, redirects nominated to RfD don't get deleted immediately, there's a waiting period. This waiting period is what's time-wasting. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not what "speedy" in "Criteria for speedy deletion" means. —Cryptic 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by that. Nominating these redirects to RfD is a waste of time. Speedy deletion bypasses this process. Consensus is so clear at this point that no discussion is needed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. As to Steel1943's good point about definitions, I would suggest something like Time-basedGeneric placeholder redirects that are no longer accurate ("Upcoming ____ season", "Untitled ____ movie", etc.) to articles about films, TV shows, or other media, where the work was commercially released more than 30 days ago.<ref>If there is any dispute as to the work's release status, or if the work's commercial release has been cancelled, the redirect should be taken to [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] instead. Note that this criterion does not cover {{em|non}}-placeholder redirects like {{-r|Untitled goose game}}.</ref> My reasoning is, if the release is cancelled, there may be nuances requiring further review, or at least figuring out what the right waiting period is in a given case. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC) ed. 19:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How does "Untitled Joker sequel" (which is held up above as obviously deletable) fit this wording any better than "Joker 2"? The latter seems more "time-based" to me, even after following this discussion; it certainly will to admins clearing out CAT:CSD and looking at each tagged page for a minute or less, let alone those that clear out the category with Twinkle. —Cryptic 17:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The proposed criterion should only apply to redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming". Joker 2 will always be accurate and should not be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then this wording, and every other wording so much as implied above, is unsuitable. —Cryptic 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Cryptic: Does the above change address your concern? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's hard to come up with a more generic placeholder name for an unreleased movie sequel than "<moviename> 2".
    Virtually all of the discussion and examples above include either "upcoming" or "untitled" somewhere in the redirect name. Why not make that an explicit requirement of the proposed criterion? Are there any other remotely common generic placeholders that make it worth contorting the wording to include? —Cryptic 20:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think it's best practice to make a CSD tied to specific words like that. Ideally a CSD should refer to a distinct concep. I don't see Joker 2 as a "generic placeholder redirect that [is] no longer accurate", and don't foresee other admins seeing it that way, but if there really is that much concern about that one edge case: {{xt|''Upcoming ____ season''}}, {{xt|''Untitled ____ movie''}}, etc.; but {{em|not}} speculative, hypothetical, or [[working title|working]] titles like {{!xt|''Movie 2''}} -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unless we're looking to expand the scope of the proposed CSD beyond media (films, TV shows, books, video games, etc.), I don't believe any other "placeholder" names exist aside from Upcoming _____, _____ (upcoming _____), and Untitled _____. _____ 2 is not a placeholder, it's a legitimate alternate name still used colloquially even after that work has an actual title. The original proposed wording at the top of this discussion specifically restricts speedy deletion to these two words. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now oppose given the above discussion has made me unconvinced that the proposal is sufficiently objective. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Thank you Extraordinary Writ for closing this. Okay, to satisfy NEWCSD #1 (objectivity), I suggest the following wording:

R5. Formerly untitled/upcoming media

This applies to redirects whose title contains the word "untitled" or "upcoming" and whose target points to a creative work (e.g. a film, a television series, a book, a video game, etc.) that is no longer untitled or upcoming. This criterion only applies to works which received an official title or a wide release at least 30 days prior. For works not expected to receive a wide release, its limited release date should be considered instead.

This criterion does not apply to redirects with a substantial non-trivial history or with incoming links in the mainspace. It also does not apply to works whose official title includes the word "untitled" or "upcoming" as a creative choice. For special or ambiguous cases where it is unclear whether a redirect falls under R5, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

I tried to make this as specific and objective as possible and I tried to incorporate everyone's suggestions and concerns above. @Steel1943, Cryptic, Thryduulf, Kusma, Jclemens, Tavix, A7V2, StarTrekker, Shhhnotsoloud, Mellohi!, Buidhe, Pppery, Jontesta, TNstingray, Oiyarbepsy, ValarianB, and Tamzin: I know it's been a while, but ... thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again, I've notified WikiProject Film, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Video games, and WikiProject Books of this discussion. Hopefully we'll get more input from them than last time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose any and all criteria regarding this that do not require the article to have been moved to a different title a significant period of time ago (30 days would be the absolute minimum, 3 months would be preferable; when our article was moved is more important than when the media gained a title) and which are objectively no longer receiving a significant number of page views. These are the two factors (along with the final paragraph of this proposal) which are the most important for determining whether such redirects should or should not be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So if we change This criterion only applies to works which received an official title or a wide release at least 30 days prior. For works not expected to receive a wide release, its limited release date should be considered instead. to This criterion only applies if the redirect target was moved to a new title after receiving an updated title or release date at least 30 days prior., you would support this? I'm open to making that wording change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No - it's an improvement but it still only partially covers one of the two missing requirements - both subject and article title need to be at least 30 days old (and ideally the article title should also be stable, but I'm not sure if we need to codify that) and there must be no significant ongoing page views. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We're already long past the pageviews thing. As established in the previous discussion, page views don't matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was a very slim consensus (that I'm not convinced actually existed given how few people actually even attempted to engage with the page views argument, but ran out of will to challenge) that page views should not stand in the way in one deletion discussion, despite the verifiable harm this causes to the encyclopaedia. That does not mean there is consensus to enshrine the same mistake in a speedy deletion criterion, let alone that I should actively support doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Literally all of the redirects that were nominated at RfD last time were deleted, in spite of your pageviews argument. Remember your WP:TRAINWRECK comment from the other day? Guess what, editors were unswayed and that discussion ended up closing as delete. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Thryduulf makes a good point concerning the article being moved rather than when the media gained a title, but if Wikipedia is moving efficiently, this shouldn't be a problem because the move would ideally happen shortly after the official name anyway. So, support per nom. TNstingray (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Remember that people are by definition not aware of when Wikipedia is not moving efficiently. Speaking for myself, I've found plenty of articles gathering dust when doing various database queries, and although none of them were about upcoming films I wouldn't be surprised if one was. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While moves might "ideally" happen shortly after the official name, that is completely irrelevant as what matters is what actually happened - and there are multiple good reasons why that might not happen for a while. Those reasons include (but are not limited to) the title not being widely publicised for a while, Wikipedians not being aware of the official name for a while (this is unlikely for a big-budget Hollywood feature film but those are not the only films Wikipedia has articles about) and it not being clear (or there being a dispute about) what the new title of the article should be (my gut feeling is this will roughly correlate with the potential ambiguity of the title, but I've made no attempt to verify that). Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional Support This is a good proposal. I agree with Thrydulf/TNstringray about moving the article first. I also agree with basing the timing on that, instead of release date. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Oppose While I still don't think NEWCSD 2 and 3 are unequivocally met, this fails a personal CSD criterion that I admit has little base in CSD policy: Too complex to be reliably executed correctly. I suppose I could appeal to WP:NOTBURO but somewhat inherent in NEWCSD #2 is the idea that the criterion be simpler than an XfD discussion, and this arguably is not. The world isn't going to end if we enact this, but I don't think we need it. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd say that "too complex" is a combination of NEWCSD 1 and 2. If a criterion is too complicated to be reliably executed correctly then it is not objective enough and/or not uncontestable. It is a very good point that something which requires a patroler to know:
    1. The date a page was moved
    2. The date the subject was officially titled and/or released
    3. (in some cases) whether the subject had and/or is expected to have a wide or limited release
    4. Whether there is any substantial history to the redirect
    5. Whether the redirect has incomming links from the mainspace
    Is probably not at all suitable for speedy deletion - and that's even discounting the page views (which absolutely should not be discounted). Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That sounds more like laziness than objectivity. I would think an administrator wouldn't have a problem performing a few extra steps. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Every administrator patrolling speedy deletion categories must be able to reliably determine whether a nominated page meets the specified criterion or not with the minimum of research, anything beyond that is not speedy deletion it's a WP:BEFORE. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to stop everyone right there before anyone else adds their !vote. I wasn't exactly looking for another poll, we already did that three months ago. I was really looking for comments and suggestions regarding the wording I suggested, such as Thryduulf's regarding the 30-day grace period. Once we finalize on a wording that satisfies all criteria of NEWCSD to a certain extent, we can launch an RfC to determine whether there is consensus for implementation, as per the closer's suggestion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support the proposed, or slightly tweaked, wording as a sensible compromise. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking a step back, I think we need to be certain that all the following are true before considering whether to speedy delete an "untitled"/"upcoming" redirect:

  1. The subject has been named/released
  2. The article has been renamed
  3. The new title is stable
  4. Readers are aware that the subject has been named/released
  5. Readers are aware that the article has been renamed
  6. Readers have stopped attempting to find the article at the old title
  • 1 and 2 are very simple and I can't think of how any criterion could conceivably apply where these aren't true.
  • 3 is a basic check of the article history and target talk page but still needs to be done. This may or may not need to be explicitly specified.
  • 4 and 5 are harder, but the time delay is a very rough proxy for the likelihood of this - the more prominent the subject in western popular culture the more likely it is to be accurate.
  • 6, despite being the most important aspect, is not covered at all in the proposed criteria and there is indeed active objection to considering the only objective measurement (page views). Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you just wrote above that the more complicated the guideline is, the less you believe it passes NEWCSD #1 and #2. I'm always going to be open to amending/improving my proposed wording, but I would appreciate it if you actually gave suggestions as to what to add or change, rather than just listing out how the current wording doesn't work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct that the more complicated the guideline is the less likely it is to pass the NEWCSD requirements, but the more I think about this the less convinced I am that writing a criterion that meets all the requirements is possible. I haven't suggested a possible wording because I have been unable to come up with anything that meets all the requirements - everything that's objective is far too broad, everything that's uncontestable is subjective and/or too complicated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on clarifying G13 and what constitutes "last human edit"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Option 1 passes. There seems to be wide agreement that adding speedy-deletion tags should not reset the G13 clock. But note also that some editors discourage the manual speedy-deletion tagging of G13-deletable pages in the first place, preferring to leave this to bots. (non-admin closure)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For background, see this recent thread on the Admin's Noticeboard: Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?

The question is: Does a human CSD tagging a draft, in and of itself, count against "have not been edited by a human in six months" of CSD G13? and how do we resolve this paradox? Should we? If so, what should be included?

Option 1: A human tagging a draft does not reset the clock, but anyone (admin or otherwise) removing a CSD tag does.

Option 1 revision text
The edit is shown in green italics

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. Adding a CSD template to a page does not reset the six month clock, but removing a CSD template does. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.

Option 1.5: Removal of a G13 tag by a user who claims to intend to improve the draft does restart the clock, procedural removal doesn't. (c/o @Animal lover 666)

Option 2: A human making an "edit to the content of the draft" does reset the clock, but any other kind of edit (e.g. tagging with a CSD, admin actions on that tag) does not. (c/o @Szmenderowiecki)

Option 2 revision text
The edit is shown in green italics

This applies to any pages without a human edit that visibly changes article content in six months. This applies to:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. Nominating these pages for speedy deletion or proposed deletion, administrator actions to these nominations, as well as additions of problem tags to these pages without any further action, do not start a new six-month period.

Option 3: Clarify that any human edit, including a CSD tag, does reset the clock. In essence, humans should not use G13.

Option 3 revision text
The edit is shown in green italics

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. A 'human edit' means that manually adding a CSD template to a page will reset the six month clock. This template should only be used by bots. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.

Option 4: Status quo.

Option 4 (status quo) text

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. It was determined that the community consensus in this RfC regarding draft namespace redirects amounted to "there is a clear consensus against deletion of draft namespace redirects. There is a rough consensus against the alternative proposal to delete draft namespace redirects after six months." Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.

This RFC is an attempt to resolve an ambiguity. There are many thoughts on all sides, and I heavily encourage anyone confused or concerned to read the thread linked above to see if that idea has already been articulated succinctly, and to echo those thoughts, whenever possible. Thanks all!— Shibbolethink ( ) 23:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option 1.5 added 02:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

How many CSD G13 noms do humans make, anyway?

(@Pppery helpfully answered this question on the original AN thread, copied below.)

I did a database query to look at stats for G13 deletions to see how frequent this is. I found:
~6000 total G13 deletions in September 2022

~500 of them appear to have been tagged by a human. In all but ~30 of those cases the specific human is Hey man im josh

6 of them (Draft:Navi Ferozpurwala, Draft:Helena Maria Carneiro Leão, Draft:Constitution of the World Health Organization, Draft:World Health Organization Executive Board, Draft:World Health Organization Secretariat, Draft:Moritz Pindorek) don't appear to actually meet the criterion by either definition.

* Pppery * it has begun... 21:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Option 1, as proposer. Option 2 as a close second. I think it makes sense that any admin thinking that a tag does not meet deletion criteria should extend the life of the draft. Same with an author who removes a CSD tag because they want to continue improving. That should reset the clock as well. We certainly could go down a long road of edge cases (e.g. what if an admin removes a tag because it's not 6 months yet, but then you tag when it has been 6 months) but I think that gets far too convoluted, and removes the elegance of the original intention of G13. We should have a policy which removes ambiguity, but does not create more confusion or edge cases. This accomplishes that goal well. It's also basically what we currently do!— Shibbolethink ( ) 23:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 Again, the biggest argument in favor of doing this is that it is what we currently do in practice, and Option 3 is a literal interpretation that as far as I can tell no one ever thought of until today. Option 2 IMO is not objective enough. Another idea to consider is to exclude edits with the "this is a minor edit" checkbox checked, but I still think Option 1 is better. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The literal interpretation was in my mind in the original discussions. It is astounding that no one would think of the literal interpretation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1. There's no real need for humans to tag for G13, but doing so obviously shouldn't reset the clock, per both longstanding practice and common sense. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3. The purpose of G13 was and is to deal with drafts that are otherwise completely ignored. This was motivated by the observation that the tens of thousands of abandoned drafts included BLP and copyrights violations, and that it was impractical to filter them for these violations, that the cost of doing so exceeded the value of the few gems in the dust that would be swept away by G13. To reduce the cost of lost few gems in the dust, processes, including standard well-worded notifications and REFUND/G13 were implemented. Humans tagging G13 undermine these processes, and so are a net negative. Stop it. There is no improvement to Wikipedia by doing this, let alone an IAR deletion reason that undermines the respect of admins respect of WP:CSD policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 tagging something for speedy deletion shouldn't reset the clock because by definition someone who tags something for deletion is happy for it to be deleted. However someone who declines a speedy deletion tag may well object. I could understand if the policy said something about the reason for declining the tag but it's probably better to keep things simple. Hut 8.5 07:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 To my opinion G13 is talking about a content-edit. A tag is not a content-edit. The Banner talk 08:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 per SmokeyJoe. Humans should not be tagging pages for G13, it doesn't benefit them or the encyclopaedia in any way and can harm the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1. Although I don't believe the vast majority of tagging for G13 ought to be done by a human, a paradox is created if a tag is allowed to reset the clock. The spirit of G13 is to clean up stale drafts, i.e., with no changes to content (active improvement in any form) for over 6 months. Option 1 also more clearly preserves the possibility of last-minute rescues, e.g., by the reviewing admin. Complex/Rational 14:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC) To clarify, my last comment on option 1 is with respect to option 2. Complex/Rational 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The spirit of G13 is to clean up stale drafts? Did you just make that up? No. Drafts do not need cleaning. The point of draftspace is a draftspace to keep draft stuff out of mainspace. If it is in draftspace, the purpose is met. The purpose of G13 is to prevent possible general violations (BLP and copyrights) from unwatched draft pages existing and accumulating forever. It most certainly was not created to feed desire for a spirit for draft cleaning. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The criterion itself is titled abandoned drafts and AfC submissions, with the key being that such pages haven't been edited in 6 months rather than a specific content issue. If this doesn't indicate routine cleanup, I don't know what does, and just because something can be tagged G13 and deleted, doesn't mean it must be. Conversely, BLP and copyright violations ought to be deleted ASAP, which is why we have G10, G12, and MfD, among other methods. Furthermore, WP:REFUND is explicitly permitted for G13, whereas I am extremely doubtful (i.e., it will essentially never happen) that BLP violations and copyvios would be restored upon request. Complex/Rational 14:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1. Option 3 isn't workable because there are pages which qualify for G13 that won't be automatically tagged by {{AFC submission}}, notably pages in draftspace that don't contain the template. I also completely fail to see how manual tagging (if done properly) "undermines the process" and I don't like having speedy deletion criteria having to rely entirely on bots (which can break, be abandoned, make mistakes, do not have common sense can miss edge cases). Option 2 significantly raises the standard that is required to keep pages from being deleted and as such I oppose it. If someone null edits a page or in some other way indicates that they do not want it to be deleted we should respect that and delay deletion, deleting it anyway then forcing them to go through WP:REFUND is just discouraging a waste of time for everyone involved. (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Option 3 is perfectly workable. Some of your logic is wrong. G13 was made for bot-implemented objective decision making, and the bots have crafted messages, and review, which busyworkers don't. If ever a human finds a draft that can't be ignored for 6 or 12 or 18 months, they should MfD it.
    RE null edits to keep a page alive. If any editor things a page should not be G13-ed, ever, then they should strip the afc taggery and userfy it. See WP:DUD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1.5 - removal of a G13 tag by a user who claims to intend to improve the draft does restart the clock, procedural removal doesn't. G13's official title is Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions; neither tagging, nor procedural removal of the tag, makes it any less abandoned. Animal lover |666| 22:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2, as I proposed, option 3 as a distant second choice. Human intervention into what essentially could be and is an automated task is an unnecessary waste of our efforts that could go towards something bots can't do as well (writing articles or enjoying teh dramah on talkpages/boards :)). Also, if someone only does drive-by tagging (whether CSD or otherwise) and doesn't care about the article in any other respect, it still remains abandoned and actually the outcome is sort of worse, because you have a stale draft with problem tags no one wants to address - for me, that's a perfectly valid reason to trash the draft. If someone does care, they could just as well make a content edit to the draft. Fixing spelling/commas/wording/whatever is good enough.
If my proposal does not pass, then at the very minimum make sure people leave the G13 tag alone. Also, no actions surrounding CSD tags should reset the clock. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 or Option 1 - these are about equal in my mind, but I have a very slight preference for option 3. We should either clarify that G13 tags are not to be applied manually, or that manual tagging does not reset the clock. Either way, option 4 - the status quo - quite clearly causes confusion. I also think option 2 is too convoluted to be applied quickly and easily. I for one don't want to have to do that kind of mental calculation for drafts tagged G13 - this should be a quick, yes/no, black/white process. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 - we should not rely solely on automated processes for cleanup. ansh.666 07:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 this is already the de facto practice, and it works well enough. I've read the !votes for other options, but I am not convinced these are actually improvements. -FASTILY 01:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2. I think that the clock should reset only when the content of the draft is updated, but I am also in favor of option 1. This will probably make things hard for the developer(s) of the bot that automatically tags drafts with CSD. SWinxy (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 with Option 2 as a close second. even I've become a frequent REFUNDer, and anything that prevents resetting the six-month clock mean potentially more REFUNDS, I would prefer that to having extraneous unencyclopedic text hanging around. Both of these options would increase the chance that the six-month period is hit, while Option 3 would decrease the chance that the six-month period is hit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Two thirds of the incorrect G13s found by Pppery above seem to be symptomatic of not enough human intervention. Two had recent edits, appear to have been included in the bot report anyway (high replag?), and then were speedied anyway; two were robotically declined for being tagged two and a half hours early, and then were speedied a few weeks later by an admin who was willing to actually look at the history. —Cryptic 02:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many here have said that human tagging of G13 harms the encyclopedia, but I haven't actually seen any evidence of that harm. It all appears theoretical to me... — Shibbolethink ( ) 13:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I admit I've made a mistake here and there, though I hope not recently. If I found out that G13 tagging was harming the encyclopedia I'd stop doing so immediately. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure Request

Heads up, since it has been 8 days since the last contribution to this discussion and this is a high-traffic page of relatively high importance to the project with a relatively clear consensus in my opinion, I have requested a closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests#WT:CSD#RFC on clarifying G13 and what constitutes "last human edit". — Shibbolethink ( ) 13:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that G13 is about our slowest CSD criteria out there, waiting another fortnight will not kill anyone. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine with me, but thought I'd ask. I generally prefer quick resolutions to these things to not waste anyone's time. But you're right, the project will be fine if this is closed in 2 weeks. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

G4 on drafts

I recently tagged a draft as a G4 as I felt it was sufficiently identical to an article deleted at AfD last month. The CSD was declined with the reason that G4 doesn't apply to drafts. I believe the implicit reason for the decline was that a page deleted in mainspace is not supposed to be applicable for G4 if recreated in draftspace.

Is this cross-namespace limitation an unwritten but generally understood part of G4? Looking at the archives I see that at   /Archive 64#G4 on Drafts, the cross-namespace concern was discussed, and SmokeyJoe attempted to add the wordings related to it, but was reverted by Cryptic who felt that the problem lies not with the G4 wordings, but will lie with the speedying admin who does not understand the namespace clause.

From a re-reading of G4 in the context of what is excluded, I see the following:

  • moved to userspace: my understanding is that the only scenario we're talking about is when the deleted page (in any namespace) is undeleted and moved to a page in userspace.
  • converted to a draft: my understanding is that there may be two scenarios: 1. When the deleted page (in any namespace) is undeleted and moved to a page in draftspace. 2. (this is the new knowledge for me, and I'm unsure) When a new draft page is created and the contents of the deleted page (in any namespace, and retrieved without the help of an admin) are added to it.
  • but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy: How can an editor circumvent deletion policy when the page is already deleted? Neither of the scenarios #1 and #2 above is a circumvention of deletion policy. What is the relevance of this text in the context of G4?

I would request the following changes to the wordings of G4:

  1. If it's indeed the case, for userspace draft and draftspace draft, make it clear that only cross-namespace draft recreation is excluded from G4.
  2. Clarify what "convert to draft" means. Does it simply mean recreation of the deleted page as a draftspace draft? Since the word "move" and not "convert" is used for userspace, is creation of a new userspace page with the contents of the deleted page applicable for G4, or do we wish to treat both userspace drafts and draftspace drafts the same?
  3. Remove the circumvent statement if there is no justification for it under G4.

Jay 💬 13:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the last is necessary, appropriate, and I will be BOLDLY making it, because that clause is fundamentally incompatible with a speedy deletion criterion: It must be clear and unambiguous, and circumvention is by definition an act that requires a specific motivation. It could probably even be cleaned up further. Thus, while Jay was wrong to try to tag a draft as G4, it's not entirely obvious from the extra verbiage in G4 why that was wrong. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thinking on this more, G4 should not be used to sanction a user attempting to circumvent the deletion process, because we don't sanction editors by deleting articles. Even U5 is not a sanction, but a protection of the site's integrity. If we're going to have a discussion along the lines of "User X tried to circumvent deletion of article Y which was being discussed at appropriate venue Z by copying it into userspace without any intent to improve it." then deletion of the content in question should absolutely be a legitimate part of the user conduct discussion, but NOT a speedy deletion criterion. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just copying the deleted content into a draft (whether in the User: or Draft: namespaces) isn't circumvention of deletion policy, of course; this phrase lets us take action when we see evidence of deliberate bad faith, like deleting a user sandbox with an unedited copy of the deleted content after the third or fourth time the user pastes it back into mainspace. About half of the hits from the top-of-the-page search box for "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy" are relevant (with the rest being pastes of the whole criterion); I mention some more examples in the first one.
I wouldn't get too hung up on the differences between "moved to userspace" and "converted to a draft", and I have no problem with cleaning up the verbiage, particularly now that I've stumbled upon the relevant mention on talk. The basic idea is that the deletion discussion would have had to apply to the recreation, and in particular drafts are deleted by MFD, not AFD. But the edit I reverted didn't clarify anything: it was largely redundant, and where it wasn't redundant it was incorrect. It would have, for example, required a second MFD for a previously-deleted draft that was pasted into a new File: description page or Category. —Cryptic 01:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what did you object to about my edit? Cryptic do you dispute that conflating behavior with a CSD criterion violates multiple aspects of WP:NEWCSD? Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cryptic didn't respond to this, and the revert was his last edit on enwiki, possible because he was fairly ill, per his last edit summary. @Jclemens: would you want to remove the circumvent part again, given the subsequent discussion had here since that time? What Salvio giuliano objected to was the rewording. Jay 💬 05:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no rush on this. I'm OK waiting a while more to make sure Cryptic's objections have been addressed. It's also the holiday season in America, so there's another good reason to not be as active on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I have no objections to the current wording. To be fair, that's how I have always interpreted it, so that helps to avoid objections from me Face-grin.svg. Salvio 13:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the moved vs converted verbiage, thanks for pointing out the relevant talk which was the source of it. Salvidrim! inserted the "converted to draft" part, but kept it unchanged for userspace as "moved". DGG did suggest consistency by using "moved to user space or draft space", but this suggestion was not actioned by either editor. We can make it consistent now. Jay 💬 13:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given Salvidrim's intention of using "convert" to encompass both scenarios of (restore+)move and (copy+paste+)recreate, I'm fine with "convert" representing the cross-namespace usage. Apart from the two scenarios I mentioned in my first post, I assume "convert" will also cover a 3rd scenario which I have seen happening. An editor realizes an article at AfD has got consensus for deletion, and just before deletion, he copies the content into a new draft page or an existing draft page. Article is deleted, the draft continues, and the copying author doesn't have to credit the original authors. I'll assume this draft is also exempt from G4. I have also seen that the AfD closing admin redirects the draft to the article, just before deletion, and then deletes the draft as a G8. Jay 💬 14:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping and for digging the 2014 post up -- my update was really so the criteria said somethng about the then-new Draftspace, I invited even back then anyone to improve the wording; it may have taken over 8 years but I'm glad the minutiae is finally being hashed out in the thread! Ben · Salvidrim!  19:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propose to change from:
It excludes userspace and draftspace pages where the content was moved to user space or converted to a draft, unless a user conduct discussion ... To:
It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted[1] to a draft, unless a user conduct discussion ....
Note that piped links to userfication, and at "converted to a draft" are removed, and replaced with a ref note. Jay 💬 08:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objections from me; I think that would say the same thing more cleanly. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reworded G4 per above. Jay 💬 02:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went through all hits of the first page of the search "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", but found specific examples only in "the first one" you linked, and let me repeat them here briefly.
A. Author uses the draft as a backup source, and creates a new mainspace article (with the old or a different title) by copying the exact draft content.
B. Author pipe links it from mainspace articles to give the impression that it's in mainspace too.
C. Author links the draft offwiki in lieu of the deleted article.
D. Author doesn't attempt to improve the draft, but makes cosmetic edits to avert G13.
E. Tries to get the draft indexed by search engines (I don't know how that's possible).
All of these are supposedly bad faith edits, but how do these translate to "circumvention of deletion policy" which (for me) is a vague / unclear statement. Do the taggers and the admin know that these are some of the examples they should be looking for? Or should the 14 reasons for deletion as listed at WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion be their guide to see that the draft is doing the same damage to the project that the article, if not deleted, would have done? The circumvention of deletion I can think of, would be an article moved to draft while the AfD is in progress (a stupid edit which will be immediately reverted). Agree with Jclemens on the difficulty of interpreting this circumvention in a CSD. It might as well be replaced by .. converted to a draft for explicit improvement in good faith., and now we're stuck with the tagger and admin engaged in what good faith means with respect to drafts recreated from deleted pages. The good faith mentioned at G7 is comparatively easier to interpret. Jay 💬 16:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or should the 14 reasons for deletion as listed at WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion be their guide to see that the draft is doing the same damage to the project that the article, if not deleted, would have done? No, most emphatically, no. CSDs are only for things that no good faith editor disputes. The criteria are objective and not subject to opinions or motivations: We don't care if G10 or G12 was accidental or malicious, that content goes, full stop. Intent is not something we can automagically assess. Actions, such as a user placing DB-U1, are concrete; intent is not. G4 has historically been one of the more misapplied criteria simply because admins have felt free to look at intent, rather than the single reasonably objective criteria, "substantially identical". Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should just say that G4 doesn't apply to drafts unless the deletion discussion was held at MfD. The fact an AfD decided that some content was unsuitable for mainspace does not mean it's unsuitable for draftspace, so the mere fact the page in draftspace is a significant difference from the original page. It is acceptable and pretty common to move content from mainspace to draftspace for improvement and draftspace is supposed to be a safe place where content can be improved without imminent threat of deletion. The current wording basically asks us to read the mind of the person who created the draft, which is too subjective for a speedy deletion criterion. Hut 8.5 11:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I tried again. Does that allow all the "duh" deletions of poor conduct moves/copies we need, while still making the criterion sufficiently objective? If not, please revert again or further modify and discuss. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I find this unnecessarily bureaucratic. If I think an editor is trying to circumvent the deletion policy, I can block him, but I can't delete the article unless I start a discussion at ANI or something like that? I think that the criterion is ok the way it is; if an administrator deletes a draft under G4, anyone can ask him to explain why he feels that the draftification was an attempt to circumvent the deletion policy. If the editor is not satisfied, he can take it to deletion review. Salvio 16:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think someone is trying to circumvent the deletion policy but you don't have enough evidence of that to support a discussion of their conduct then you shouldn't be blocking them (whether there is a discussion or not, you should not be blocking anybody a discussion would not support blocking). >99% of drafts are completely harmless and so can and should be just ignored - G13 will mop up all those in draft space soon enough. For those drafts that are not harmless, but don't meet a CSD criterion (in practice this is almost always going to be G10 or G12) then take it to MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is what I am thinking as well: G10, 11, or 12 will always be appropriate to use against objectively harmful content in whatever namespace. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to misunderstand my point. It's not that, in my example, I would not have enough evidence to support a discussion, but rather that it's a clear-cut case. In that case, demanding a discussion to delete the drafts is needlessly bureaucratic, especially considering that I could freely block the editor in question. Furthermore, G13 is not necessarily enough, because if there is someone making cosmetic edits to the draft, then it is ineligible for deletion. And I do not see a point in requiring the use of MfD for obvious things, that's just jumping through hoops for the sake of it. Salvio 08:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that you don't need to delete the drafts, with or without discussion - unless they are actively harmful then just ignore them. If someone is blocked then they can't make cosmetic edits to avoid G13. If the page does not meet a speedy deletion criterion then it is not "obvious" and must be discussed before deletion. If you are speedily deleting things that do not meet a speedy deletion criterion then you are abusing your admin powers and should hand in your bits immediately. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that, according to the way I interpret policy, G4 applies to drafts that are recreation of articles deleted at AfD, if the recreation is an attempt to circumvent policy. Salvio 10:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the interpretation that is being challenged here, because as has been pointed out multiple times there is no way that that meets the objectivity required for speedy deletion. I completely agree with @Jay, @Hut 8.5 and @Jclemens that the wording of the policy should be changed to make that unambiguous. Making this change will not prevent the deletion of things that should be deleted, but will prevent the deletion of things that should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: Since you re-instated but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy, either as a status quo, or because you follow it, can you describe what it means, in words and/or examples? If it's the examples I listed above, how are they a circumvention of deletion policy? If this text continues to be there at G4, I would like to know how they are interpreted by editors. Jay 💬 03:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not remember coming across a draft that would qualify, but the way I interpret policy is that you can recreate an article that was deleted at AfD as a draft, as long as you're actively trying to improve it. This does not mean that you need to be constantly working on it, but you need to show that you're trying to resolve the issues that led to the original deletion. If you recreate the draft and then do not make edits to it for a while or you make just enough cosmetic edits to make it ineligible for deletion under G13, then, as far as I'm concerned, you're trying to circumvent the deletion policy. Especially if you're doing it with multiple drafts. I am open to rewording the policy, to make it clearer. I'm personally against requiring what I perceive as nothing but bureaucracy... Salvio 09:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone is making cosmetic edits on many drafts with the apparent sole purpose of avoiding G13 deletion then that's a user conduct issue that needs to be discussed. If the editor is doing that (which is often subjective) and doesn't stop after being told to, and nobody else is improving the drafts, then the editor can be blocked (in which case the G13 timer won't be reset). Alternatively the drafts can be nominated at MfD (there is a strong consensus that this is an appropriate reason to take something to MfD) and if the participants there agree that this is what is happening then it will be deleted. There is nothing here that is suitable for a single administrator acting unilaterally. Additionally, you've stated this is all theoretical and you've never seen it actually happen, which also makes it unsuitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly disagree that that this would be a conduct issue that would need to be discussed. Administrators act on their own authority every day multiple times a day, without requiring discussions. This idea that an administrator would need consensus to block someone who the administrator believes is editing disruptively is entirely novel and not supported by any consensus I am familiar with. Salvio 10:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I worded that poorly. If you think someone is making cosmetic edits with the apparent sole purpose of avoiding G13 deletion that is a user conduct issue that needs to be discussed if it isn't both clear enough and serious enough for an immediate block. In neither case though does that mean the draft needs to be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The premise of the discussion here is that the draft is associated with one and one author only. If it is UserX who converted the draft, but UserY who is making the cosmetic edits, then this naturally becomes a user behaviour concern, and not a draft content one. There in lies the problem of G4 equating the draft's sanity with user behaviour. Will the G4 tagger have to prove that UserY could be a sock of UserX? Also, by making cosmetic edits, an editor can claim to be buying more time to make improvements. Why should this be different for converted drafts vs normal drafts? Jay 💬 14:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletion policy circumvention clause was indeed user-centric as it was added in 2008 when we had userspace drafts, not draftspace drafts, so it made sense at the time. Some history on this. In this post (/Archive 29#Rewording to conform to a consensus I have seen), User:ScienceApologist said that .. users have made user subpages to subvert deletion discussions..., but when User:ජපස added it to G4, it was worded as if someone creates a user subpage as a way to subvert Wikipedia's deletion policy. The word subvert was changed to circumvent by Happy-melon the next day. ScienceApologist did not say in his discussion how users subverted deletion discussions by creating subpages. Jay 💬 13:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not seen this kind of gaming for some time, but it used to be that when an obviously problematic page would end up deleted, the page creator would create something like a WP:FAKEARTICLE with the ostensible idea that they would "work on improving" the draft to get it ready for reupload. Sometimes this is a legitimate technique, but sometimes this is gaming. I don't think there is a bright line for when one or the other is happening. These days, I think that WP:FAKEARTICLE works better than this speedy criteria especially as userspace drafts are less prone to accidental Googlejuicing, for example, then they were in certain bad old days. jps (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to recall that back 15 years ago when this was an issue userspace was not NOINDEX'ed; in general, the move to draftspace seems to have dealt with a lot of those issues. Also, we've gotten better at identifying why something should be nuked (copyvio, attack, promotion) vs. just allowed to languish in non-article space (non-notable). Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the sort of fine-tuning that is pointless because the admins performing deletions won't care. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sad but true in some cases, but there are plenty of conscientious admins who don't IAR CSD. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone is deleting things against policy then challenge them on it, taking them to ANI if they don't get why it's wrong. There is never a reason to IAR CSD (because by definition there cannot be). If you let it pass then the encyclopaedia is being harmed and will continue to be harmed in future as more and more things get deleted that shouldn't be. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drafts are in draft space because they are concededly not ready to be in article space. If the sole concern for the draft is that the subject is non-notable, then it should be left alone for potential improvement. If it is not edited for some length of time, it will be deleted as a matter of course. If someone bothers making nitpicking edits to avoid that, so what? It's still just a draft. BD2412 T 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ A conversion to draft is when a page from a different namespace is moved, or its content copied, as a draft.

A5. Transwikied articles - Wiktionary

A5 states This applies to any article that consists only of a dictionary definition that has already been transwikied (e.g. to Wiktionary). However, Wiktionary no longer accepts transwikis from Wikipedia.

I propose that we address this by splitting this aspect of A5 out into a new CSD, A12. Dictionary definitions, which would read This applies to any article that consists only of a dictionary definition. BilledMammal (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a split-out aspect; that's a new license to delete DICTDEFs on sight. Why is that a good thing? Jclemens (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because that licence existed until Wiktionary changed their policies, and because of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. However, the other option would be to remove that sentence from A5. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the latter would be more congruent with past policies--"transwiki then speedy delete" is a lot different than "speedy delete" because in the former case it's clear that the contribution went somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could clarify A5 to be "any articles that exist on another Wikimedia project and fall foul of WP:NOT", pretty much like A2 is for any articles that exist on another Wikimedia project and are not in English. I don't see any evidence of need for a CSD for dictionary definitions. —Kusma (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a workable suggestion. We don't need to have a list of possible transwikis in the CSD that could change at any time due to those other wiki's policies. If we can't transwiki a page, then we should try to improve it to encyclopedic quality instead (or PROD/AFD if that isn't possible). IffyChat -- 14:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or just repeal A5 entirely - it's been used a grand total of 8 times in 2022: Trainer Card (Pokémon), Items in the Metroid series, Creatures in the Metroid series, Creatures in the Metroid Prime series, Creatures in Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission, Creatures in Metroid, Metroid II, and Super Metroid, Rings (The Legend of Zelda series), and Konnichi wa. 7 of those were instances of an admin temporarily restoring a page previously deleted at AfD to allow it to be copied to another project and then redeleting it later, which several other criteria could apply to. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOT is inherently subjective, and many articles which run afoul of it have flaws which can be fixed by regular editing. Basing a speedy deletion criterion on NOT without further qualification is likely to lead to more problems than it solves. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, basing CSD criteria on WP:NOT has been suggested many times and rejected, for good reason, on every single occasion. There is nothing different about this proposal in that regard. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transwikied pages aren't really deleted, just moved to a more appropriate project. False positives would be articles that also exist on a different project, look like they violate WP:NOT but should still be kept on two separate projects. Looks unlikely to me. —Kusma (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think the page shouldn't be on the English Wikipedia, nominate it for deletion. Whether something does or does not violate WP:NOT is incredibly subjective and not always unfixable and so completely inappropriate for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the suggestion to repeal A5. An XfD consensus to "transwiki" means "transwiki and then delete" so this is not relevant to speedy deletion. Any other page that has been transwikied that doesn't meed another speedy deletion criterion already should be nominated at the relevant XfD and discussed (with the transwiki mentioned in the nomination) - if there is benefit to keeping here (in some form) then it shouldn't be deleted, if there isn't there will be a consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Repealing is probably fine. Transwikis have become so rare that they don't need to clutter the speedy deletion menus. —Kusma (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd agree. It's not a common speedy deletion reason and if Wiktionary folks don't want them, we can hardly override them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur, Transwiki is an archaism. Let's sunset A5. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have gone ahead with what is probably the most BOLD edit I have ever made and depreciated A5. "Should we deprecate a CSD that was needed a single time in the past year?" is hardly a question worth editors' time in the form of a (an?) RfC, WP:NOTBURO, etc. I open my computer to see that I forgot to hit publish when I made the corresponding edit last night. My apologies for the false promise of "see talk". HouseBlastertalk 21:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of those transwiki deletions have been done by me, and I expect that I will continue to delete for that reason. But the stuff I delete has not actually been a dictionary definition, but an AFD'd article. But if A5 is not on the dropdown list, it will just be an IAR delete, and perhaps tagged as G6. Sometimes I do copy a definition to Wiktionary without deletion, but since formatting is very different there, transwiki does not make sense, and really just needs crediting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think you would need to IAR—those deletions should be covered under whatever criterion (which I assume is G6) is used to delete a page that was {{temporarily undeleted}}'d. HouseBlastertalk 02:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to delete an AfD'd article, then you can simply cite the AfD as justification for the deletion. -- King of ♥ 04:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: If you are invoking IAR in order to justify a delete, that to me is abuse of admin powers. If you are re-deleting a page previously deleted at a WP:XFD and subsequently undeleted, link the discussion where the delete was agreed. If you are deleting a page previously deleted at a WP:XFD and subsequently recreated, link to WP:CSD#G4 and the XfD discussion. If there was no discussion, and none of the current CSD criteria apply, the page cannot be deleted without a proper WP:XFD. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears that you like rules. Admins should be able to reverse an action that they performed. Perhaps that should not be called IAR, and called something else. If I undeleted a page, I should be permitted to reverse that in order to delete it. (However if the page is edited in between that may not be appropriate any more). Anyway, the idea is to improve the encyclopedia by not having a page around that should be deleted, but is now transwikied to another wiki. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post bold-support, agree A5 is deprecated, but there is not support for A12 at this time. — xaosflux Talk 12:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

In the paragraph: "X1. Redirects created by Neelix Created as a G6 extension in December 2015 shortly after the discovery and arbitration case regarding 50,000+ questionable redirects created by the user Neelix, and later split into its own criterion. Was repealed in April 2018 after cleanup was completed (discussion). Instead, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.", the sentence "Instead, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion." should be removed as it is not necessary anymore since the cleanup is finished. Carpimaps (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done I object to this - while any specific effort to clean up Neelix redirects has finished, surely people will still come across Neelix redirects that they think should have been X1-ed but weren't from time to time so the pointer is still helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quantifying "few or no other edits" in U5

U5 requires that "the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". Is there any guidance on how many "few or no" refers to? Some relevant stats for December 2022 so far:

Number of non-userspace edits Number of users whose pages were deleted
>100 10
50-100 9
20-50 17
10-20 40
1-10 364
0 ~1500

I came across this when writing a query to report violations of this requirement to Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions, and ended up setting the threshold to 100 there. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thinking about this, I'd be tempted to change the criterion's wording to something like "10 or fewer edits outside user pages, excluding edits that are or could be speedily deleted under other criteria." I'm happy to consider a higher threshold, but not one greater than 100. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel that 10 is an appropriate threshold. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above query already excludes deleted edits. My intuition says the threshold should be higher than 10, but I have no good argument for it other than that most admins doing CSD seem to think it's higher (although I have no means of searching for failed CSD attempts) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd actually go up to 20, but 10 is a reasonable threshold too. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it possible that there was no check for "few or no edits outside of user pages" done in those high number cases. I would be happy to support a number of 10. Anything greater than 10 is not "few". I will complain about nominations for deletion of a user page, where it is clearly an article draft, that is not about the user. Also U5 looks very similar to US, but probably too flimsy a reason to change anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd rather we didn't quantify the number of edits, so as not to encourage gaming the criterion, which is incredibly useful to get rid of a bunch of crap without too much fuss. I probably have a different approach, but I actually prefer leaving some room for an admin's use of discretion, after all that's what admins are appointed to do, but, if we have to establish a threshold, then I'd oppose anything lower than 50. Salvio 10:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see this more about: If someone is a productive editor, and they have some nonsense in a sandbox, don't whack them with a speedy delete template; their fantasy MILF Island brackets that would normally be speedy-deletable may be serving a purpose such as table/template troubleshooting that you're not aware of. Have we run in to issues with an red-line edit count would have made a difference here, such that this needs to be defined? — xaosflux Talk 13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Quantifying the number misses the point. It’s about whether the person was here to be a good faith contributor to the project. Mainly, it’s about mainspace edits. Were they all reverted? Were they token edits, done to achieve some metric like autoconfirmed or the number that this discussion might produce? If they were ever a good-faith contributor, they deserve the dignity of a discussion, not the knee jerk deletion that is U5. U5 is for quickly getting rid of the time wasting of deliberate or inept misusers of Wikipedia who have no chance of every being a productive contributor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting writing a hard line into the criterion, just wanted some advice about how many "few or no" refers to. It seems like there's widespread disagreement about that, even among watchers of this page. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The “few” edits for disregarding were meant to be for excluding test edits, or edits to their autobiography, with discretion to the deleting admin. Are they WP:NOTHERE bold points #1 and #2?
    Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business
    Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing (see WP:SPA).
    Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site
    A primary focus on Wikipedia as a social networking space (resumes, social media type pages, etc.). See WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK for more information.
    What I look for is whether all their mainspace edits were reverted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we please take a closer look at the ten cases of >100? SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likely, there are a few admins who are loose with the criteria, and they need to be reminded of policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SmokeyJoe CSD's are rather discretionary by nature, if an admin declines a speedy nomination you make, you can always just MFD it. — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or DRV it if you think they are being overly speedy. — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CSDs are supposed to be objective. U5 is quite special is having an extremely broad NOTWEBHOST criterion but coupled to an extreme “few or no edits”.
I don’t recall ever having a CSD tag declined. I think some admins are overly speedy. One of the ten was extraordinarily egregious and did go through DRV. I think the deleting admins should be invited to comment on their interpretation of the text at WP:U5 and how it applies to these ten cases. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Anthony Bradbury
Would you please comment on your listing in the linked table?
User:UtherSRG Already had a DRV for the User:AntonioMartin case.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My two were mistakes. I need to be more vigilant in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks User:Bbb23. That was my guess. One should consider their mistake rate, the number of mistakes divided by their number of actions.
I rarely U5 as such, I guess I'm listed because where there is a G11/U5 I haven't always checked the U5 bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the page would be SNOW deleted at MfD, that’s not a CSD, but as a tagging mistake it’s a non-issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't always re-look at a CSD category to read the exact wording when I go about doing a speedy. I most often just look at the speedy tag itself and judge based on that. I err on both sides of that fence, but the non-deletes don't get seen. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like User:Jimfbleak, I'm not too troubled as to how many edits have been made overall. For me, making 100 small edits in a short space of time in order to get your pet topic on Wikipedia is no better than making half a dozen major edits for the same reason. I would seldom delete for U5 on its own so it hasn't been a consideration for me. Deb (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#U5, as I subtly linked to above. Feel free. There's now only 9, since in one case enough of the user in question's other edits were deleted to knock them below 100 edits. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think U5 is fine as written but we must recognize what it is. It's inherently somewhat subjective rather than objective, and the phrase in question even more so. While speedy is usually about the page, this phrase brings in an "activity elsewhere" criteria to judge the creators motivation and then judges the page by that motivation. Also, I think that wiki decisions are inherently take into \account multiple factors such as the nature of the page and the activity criteria. What does it mean if you set an explicit pass/fail criteria for one criteria in a multi-factor decision? North8000 (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If in doubt, use MfD. U5 is only for objective non-contributors. A few random editors don’t make someone a genuine good faith contributor. Anyone who can’t identify objectively whether that account has made good faith edits shouldn’t touch U5. For the vast majority of U5 deletions, it is clear cut. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U5: A non-contributor’s misuse of Wikipedia as a web host

This edit, retitling U5 to “A non-contributor’s misuse of Wikipedia as a web host” may be required and sufficient to refocus U5 on the objective criteria that the user is a non-contributor. The above includes clear evidence that admins deleting under U5 are sometimes completely forgetting the non-contributor aspect. At MfD, it is clear that non-admins frequently fail to read past the first clause. If this sticks, next it should filter through to twinkle: U5 is only for non-contributors’ pages.

How many mainspace edits make a user a contributor? Mostly, U5 is used where they have zero. For the one to dozens range, it depends on the edits. Where they junk and reverted? Were they dummy edits?

If a user has any proclivity to productive editing, they should get the respect of an MfD discussion over U5 speedy deletion. Give respect, and you get respect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the removal of “Blatant”. I don’t recall this being a feature of the original discussions. It was sufficient that the non-contributors page was a mere NOTWEBHOST violation. Eg a probably CV, which is not blatantly not a draft mainspace biography. Also, “blatant” draws the mind to the degree of the NOTWEBHOST violation, and draws attention away from the non-contributor aspect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]