This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
I wanted to get people's thoughts on this before I formally propose it since it would potentially dramatically increase the number of article subject to speedy deletion.
The
notability standards for musical albums is pretty basic as far as notability standards goes. No inheritance, must have been discussed in independent reliable sources, etc. However, just from personal experience it seems like album inclusion as a separate article is far closer to "it exists" than any semblance to meeting the actual notability standards. These do not meet A7 and 99% of the time do not meet A9 as it doesn't meet both conditions of the criterion. This leaves AfD or PROD which is a drawn out process. So, what are people's opinions on modifying the A9 criterion to strike the both conditions must be met
part?
Note: This is not a RfC. More of a straw poll to see what people's thoughts are on the matter. -- Majora ( talk) 00:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Q: Are crammers schools for the purposes of A7? They're privately run businesses which appear to be sneaking the protection given to secondary schools. Crammers aren't compulsory education. They're not part of the normal K-12 educational process. They have no place in the standard flow. They ought not to get the exemption provided for schools. Cabayi ( talk) 09:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been a bit perturbed by the notion that some admins are shy of the topic for fear of deletion review. I was also taken by Iridescent's point that it's about "educational institutions", not schools; also by Adam9007's point about the linked article. So, time for a little research...
The schools exemption was added on 2 Oct 2008, then changed to, and linked to educational institution on 26 Aug 2011.
The establishments listed at educational institution have included clown college, sex universities, and Siting on your ass all day doing nothing. But the list has NEVER included crammer schools.
It seems clear to me that crammer schools are not protected from A7, but that they have gained that protection through intimidation. Do we need an RfC to clarify?
I'm also concerned that the wiki's policy leans on an unprotected article. In practical terms this would have meant that, at some point in the past, clown colleges and sex universities were protected from A7. Shouldn't the article have a little protection? Cabayi ( talk) 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
A11: An article that indicates that the subject is not worthy of inclusion, without any evidence to the contrary. This includes things claimed to be recently invented or discovered as well articles that describe the subject as insignificant. A lack of information about the subject is NOT sufficient for A11. Unverifiable claims inserted by anyone other than the first author aren't sufficient for A11 either.
This would not only include all "We discovered/invented this a week ago, and wanted to share it on Wikipedia" articles but also any other article that indicates that the subject NOT belong to Wikipedia. Articles that describe the subject as something that isn't really important, WP:Run in the mill things, or such... It is very unlikely that these should have an article. Burning Pillar ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
So, I think that the current first sentence of
A7,
This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization,
web content or organized event
[1] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of
educational institutions.
[2]
should be changed to this:
This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization,
web content or organized event
[1] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of
schools and post-secondary institutions (such as
colleges) that are
educational institutions.
[2]
My reasoning for this is because of the fact that "educational institutions" can include things that I think that we agree should not be lumped in with schools, such as companies for
educational consultants. And, even if most administrators would delete these pages due to differing definitions of "educational institutions". At least a few, although, broadly define the term "educational institutions", and are hesitant in deleting it. Thus, this is in fact a problem. The next step is fixing it. I think that this is making steps towards this. I did include the phrase "that are educational institutions" because of the fact that "schools and post-secondary institutions" might include things such as driving schools, or private companies that are considered to be schools but not educational institutions. Thus, the "that are educational institutions" is not redundant.
References
This is a notice to inform interested editors that someone proposed a change to this policy at WP:VPP. The section is called " CSD tag for WP:NOT violations". Regards So Why 06:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Of the non-media file types listed in the examples for F10, only PDF is currently technologically permitted to be uploaded on enwp. Should we remove the other examples? – Train2104 ( t • c) 04:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose :
A12: An article that was created more than one month ago that is completely unsourced.
It meets most of the criteria: Objective- yes, no sources at all are no sources. Uncontestable- yes, per WP:V:"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The existance of the article subject needs a source, always. Frequent-sort of. These articles are , currently at 206335 articles. Sending even half of that number to AFD would make it implode. They are simply not listed there for that precise reason, that is they weren't until now. Nonredundant-This is where I am not sure. You could simply remove the unsupported material(which is permitted) and then you could CSD it via A3 or A1(because there is nothing left, at least nothing that defines the article subject). But on the other hand, the CSD criteria are usually applied only when they apply to all pages in the history. Burning Pillar ( talk) 23:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose expanding A9 like this:
I think we can all agree that it makes no sense to have to wait for an artist's article to be speedy deleted before articles for their recordings can be tagged for A9 deletion. This way, the reviewing admin can first check the artist, decide whether to delete their page and then can handle the recordings afterwards. Regards So Why 08:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm grateful for the copyvios report and wonder how it relates to tagging for deletion under G12. In this instance -> National Flagship was so tagged, but copvios gave a likelihood of 3.8%. The only duplication was less than a dozen words, some of which could not be rewritten to have the sense of the thing. Just wondering how the whole thing works. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 13:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just had my {{ db-inc}} on Shaftesbury Hotel Perth Western Australia changed to a prod, with the reason "non-notable building".
Aside from the format of the article title, it seems to me that this change was made on the basis that the one sentence that's there purely describes the building and its location, not the hotel business. (While it appears that the hotel may no longer exist, this doesn't seem to be a case where a building that was once a hotel later became a building of historical interest, which would be another matter.)
Is this a sufficient criterion for an article to be out of A7 scope? Furthermore, if an article about a commercial building contains information about both the business and the building, then does this bar use of A7 on the basis that the information about the building can be kept (at least pending a prod or AfD being raised) even if it has no CCS? — Smjg ( talk) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
While I'm here- Is it possible to have such a box (don't know the tech term, sorry) that appears when you choose the 'U5' criterion? Similar to G5, G6, G12, etc. It would be useful for editors to explain how the page reaches that criterion, wouldn't it? E.g, 'per [[WP:NOTXYZ]].' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The page Marcus Hutchins has been created to detail the researcher who stopped the WannaCry ransomware attack. This is despite his previous request that he remain anonymous for his safety:
MalwareTech said he preferred to stay anonymous “because it just doesn’t make sense to give out my personal information, obviously we’re working against bad guys and they’re not going to be happy about this.” [1]
Is there any means by which this can be CSD'ed for the researcher's safety? — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 11:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
He actually commented having a wikipedia account about him on his twitter account, saying that he would prefer it be under his online nickname instead. 88.111.90.73 ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
References
A page I created was speedily deleted without pretext and was quoted as "a personal attack", meanwhile I couldn't contest this and the editor threatened to block me, how do I report this? Donald Trung ( talk) 13:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss this part of G4 briefly. Most of the speedy criteria are set up so that there isn't a whole lot of a judgement call going on--the intent is that speedies are for cases that are "obvious". But this part seems to be asking the deleting admin to guess why someone did something. If a user has a draft of a deleted article in user space and is working to improve it, it might only be there to "circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", or it might be there to hopefully recreate a functional article. I don't think I'm comfortable with an admin deleting a draft because of their read of the motives of the user. What are best practices here? Is that parenthetical actually important to keep around? Could we change this that G4 only applies in draft space if a draft was previously deleted via a deletion discussion? Hobit ( talk) 14:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I just want to know why only userspace pages get speedy deleted per NOTWEBHOST? I know just a little about this and don't know why it doesn't apply (the CSD, not the policy) to other namespaces. Thanks in advance. Lil Johnny ( talk) ( contribs) 05:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This junk, if placed in mainspace, would be reverted. Legacypac ( talk) 02:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Should we make {{ Db-g12}} courtesy blank the page like {{ Db-g10}} does? It should be noted that {{ subst:copyvio}} already does this for possible copyright violations. G12 is used for definite copyright violations. — Gestrid ( talk) 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.
Also Twinkle discription says User Pages: G11 Promotional userpage under a promotional user name. When you click ? It says "a promotional user name which promotes or implies affiliation with the thing being promoted. ... if a userpage is spammy but the username is not consider tagging with regular G11 instead.
I keep finding non-notable musicians and youtubers like this guy User:Greenmonsta92/Nick Corjay which seem to match Userpage G11 exactly and especially the twinkle instructions. His username is his brand/alterego mentioned 7 times on the short page beyond the title. No indication of meeting GNG. What kind of page does User G11 cover if not this? In other cases its User:XYZ or User:XYZ/XYZ and all about promoting XYZ. Often there are spam links too. It looks like WP:PROMO point 5 to me. What am I missing in my application of G11? Legacypac ( talk) 10:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be difficult just trying to understand. I'd expect a widely used tool like twinkle is compliant with policy as "someone" understands it. Legacypac ( talk) 10:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
When I've reported new usernames like this they get instablocked but I don't report inactive promotional usernames. I assume everyone agrees this is a promotional username right?
Perhaps there is a range of opinion on what is promotional? Most advertising is not like late night infomercial promotional style. Legacypac ( talk) 10:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I assume everyone agrees this is a promotional username right?Well no, it isn't. Our policy says promotional usernames consist of:
Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product ... Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com") that promote a commercial web page and don't simply identify a person. Nothing is said about stage names. It appears that "Greenmonsta92" or perhaps just "Greenmonsta" is the stage name of Nick Corjay, and that the user is probably Corjay, or perhaps a fan. He may well have had promotional intent. But if this name were posted at WP:UAA, I would decline to block with the "Not a blatant violation" template after having checked out the user's contributions. A user is free to identify with a legal name, a long-standing nickname, or a stage name, provided there is no issue of impersonation. The page should not have been CSD tagged, and the user name should not be reported at UAA. DES (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the insights into the thinking on the other side of CSD I'll modify my G11s appropriately. Legacypac ( talk) 08:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
We could take a lot of load off MfD and CSD by changing this template to blank the page.
This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see
Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL |
. Nearly all the 30,000 pages its used on should be CSD/MfD or blanked anyway for various problems. I understand the template only applies to pages over 1 year old. Legacypac ( talk) 19:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. There is at least one other version that does hide the content, but this is the main template used. For the rare active user templated thus, I'd suggest removing the template. Legacypac ( talk) 20:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
"Blanking automatically allows the rare user who comes back over a year later to continue (which maybe undesirable in many case where the page should be deleted.) Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)"Agree, very much. Deleting pages is very bitey for tentative contributors. Tentative contributors include people who put their toe in, and then return a couple of years later. Many active, valuable regular contributors have early contribution histories that match this pattern. Maybe this is talking about one in ten thousand draftspace drive-by contributors. I think they are worth reaching out to, until presented with evidence to say otherwise. I seriously do not understand why Wikipedia new registrants are not auto-welcomed. The {{ welcome}} template gives them a much nicer welcome and better advice than does WP:AFC. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been promoting the very best of stale userspace because there was such a cry against losing possibly useful content. For my efforts, some of the same people frantic to preserve old user drafts in case it might be useful are trying to impose bans against me from page moves or BLP on me at ANi right now. If the rapid inclusionists don't want the best of the material in mainspace, let's hide it all. Legacypac ( talk) 02:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure not moving content to mainspace to seek deletion. In one slightly embarrassing case I failed to detect copy vio (I think off a pdf) while researching the notability of the topic. Obvious if I'd found copyvio I'd have speedied the userpage. In one other case an experienced new page reviewer questioned notability and after a bunch more checking decided to AfD it. We both agreed it was a borderline case, and I deferred to his judgement. AfD will decide. Anything else questioned or tagged I defend and try to overcome the objections. Legacypac ( talk) 04:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The WFLabs created The New Page Feed /info/en/?search=Special:NewPagesFeed allows selection of User or Article pages. Reviewing new user pages there shows the same issues exist as in the "Stale" pages. Currently
A good portion of the reviewed this week is my reviews. I did a bunch of the new pages and found exactly the same mix of issues. Clearly there is no way we can keep up and we need an automated blanking solution. Legacypac ( talk) 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Any way to put a time constraint in it. It blanks the page if creation date is more than 1 year ago? No one is trying to blank recently created pages. Legacypac ( talk) 02:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale drafts - In MfDs of "stale user drafts" I have most often seen the term used to refer to drafts that are out of date because there is a newer version around, either in Draft space or in mainspace. These need to be deleted or merged, not just blanked.. No. A newer version calls for a redirect of the older version to the newer version. Accidental content forks should be fixed by redirection. The redirect tells everyone, especially the old author, where the topic now is. Not infrequently, the old version is connected to the new version, and deletion will hide evidence of failure to attribute. Also, "out of date" and "better version" can be matters of opinion that can change, better to leave it for editors to be able to fix. No need to make the permanent decision and hide the records. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk)
As you point out, the number of [UP#NOT] vastly exceeds valid drafts. Deleting is not needed, but "blanking during periods of inactivity" is established practice no one contests. Automating long standing practice should not violate policy. Legacypac ( talk) 03:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
... is not mandated nor suggested by any policy or guideline, can you link to any policy or guideline page I have overlooked? Can anyone?
It is not "long standing practice" in my experience. While I can hardly be wrong about my own experience, it may be that my experience is not representative. Can you (or anyone) show diffs of several different editors, over a period of several years, doing such blanking?
Such blanking hinders any effort to collaboratively resume editing on such pages, thereby attacking the very basis of Wikipedia. Do you deny that such blanking hinders any effort to collaboratively resume editing on the pages involved? Or do you think I am mistaken that collaborative editing is at the heart of Wikipedia?
mistaken, on basically every point? Do you think an RFC on this issue would be helpful? DES (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
"blanking during periods of inactivity" is established practice no one contests. Automating long standing practice should not violate policy.. That is the
such blankingthat I did and do take exception to, a blanking that, as far as I understand, makes no distinctions based on the problematic nature of the page, or its lack of such nature. That is what I suggest is not established practice: knee-jerk blanking of every userspace draft older than some particular age. I think it might be argued whether a few thousand uses of a blanking template constitute "established practice", but it clearly is not an effectively automated practice. Note that WP:CSD#U5 says
...with the exception of plausible drafts...and so is not relevant to a mass-blanking. I do support U5, and have deleted pages tagged under it this very day (although as with several criteria, I think it is often over-used.) Perhaps that clarifies my views a bit. DES (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Blanking has been in the Stale User Draft category (current [Category:Stale userspace drafts]) instructions since March 2015
[1]. But the idea predates that I'm sure.
Working through
WP:ABANDONED drafts is a long standing thing at [Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts] back to 2011 and also since Nov 2015 at this subpage of the same Wikiproject
[2] where blanking is one of the options to consider. The idea has been to eventially empty the category, as unrealistic as that might be. In my view the only "Abandoned" or "Stale" drafts in userspace should be stuff active editors plan to work on and these pages should be deleted from the stale category. Anything utterly useless written by a departed editor should be deleted, redirected at a mainspace topic, moved to Draft space under an appropriate Draft title so others can find it and feel empowered to work on it, or promoted to main space if suitable as at least a stub or merger material. Its a maintenance category and every page should be processed out of the category. Otherwise it just grows and grows and those of us that work it end up evaluating the same pages over and over.
Even in the hot debates with rabid inclusionists last year I never recall anyone demanding we not blank. In fact they advocated that was the overriding policy and we should not be using CSD and MfD for cleanup. Legacypac ( talk) 00:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
In cases where the main user page has been used to create drafts whose subject already is in the mainspace, and the user is inactive, replace the contents of the user page with {{ Inactive userpage blanked}}. That applies only to pages where the subject is already covered by an article in mainspace, not that a category page exactly defines policy. DES (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
To find useful articles (gems) in the garbage pile you have to sort the garbage pile. If you just toss the assessed garbage back on the pile, instead of disposing of it permanently, you and the next gem searchers have to reassess the same garbage again and again as you hunt. Over time the gem hunting gets harder and harder as the ratio of garbage to gems rises.
Arguably the garbage pile is so big already it makes sense to at least hide the garbage (if not burn it all in place). When I am threatened with topic bans at ANi for moving the best gems forward, by the same people who object to to deleting garbage because there might be a gem, it gets pretty discouraging. I don't see any of the loadest voices at ANi actually assessing pages or actioning them.
The flip example is NPP. If we did not remove Patrolled articles from the Patrolling list how would we ever find the garbage? We'd be patrolling and repatrolling forever. Legacypac ( talk) 02:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Occasionally I find userpages with extended personal info. Like DOB, full name, parents full names, place born, address, phone numbers, facebook link etc. One case that really concerned me was a 10 year old girl complete with b-day and school she attends. Others are more like a social networking attempt. What is the correct procedure in these cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
User:C.murugan engineer? Treating WP as social networking site or self promotion? Would you accept a CSD? New page, no other edits yet. Legacypac ( talk) 17:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If there is other possibly useful content on the page. DES (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ db-g10}} (attack pages) currently blanks the content of the page with which it is tagged. It does so not by deleting (much less revdel-ing) the content, but simply marking it with CSS so that it will not be displayed. This does not prevent non-css browsers, text-only browsers, and speech browsers from displaying the content, nor does it prevent search engines from indexing the content. Thus it gives a largely false sense of security that the content is not being displayed. It also makes it just that little bit harder for a reviewing admin to determine if the page should in fact be deleted.
In article space this blanking is perhaps justified, although nothing requires it. (Nor is it specified in the criterion itself.) But in draft or userspace where search engines do not index pages anyway, this serves less purpose. Comments in the #Template:G12 courtesy blanking section suggests that others agree with this idea. I therefore propose that the template be made namespace-aware, and not blank content in the draft or user namespaces. (Alternatively it could blank only when an explicit optional parameter calls for blanking.) Many templates are namespace-aware, this is not technically a problem. DES (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively it could blank only when an explicit optional parameter calls for blanking.You do have a point that criteria for using such a parameter would be hard to define. While it is true that some attacks are far more serious than others ("Joe Blow rapes little girls." is a bit more serious than "Joe Blow never formats citations correctly."), deciding where to draw the line, or how to judge relative seriousness in less clear-cut cases might be more trouble than it is worth, so perhaps this idea isn't such a good one. DES (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
To comment further on my doing 2c, my main experience with G10 involved a fast-moving vandal that was copy-pasting the same message to multiple pages, mainly in the talk/ user talk namespaces. I had to keep up with them without rollback (I discovered them using the CVN IRC channel.), so I was tagging with Twinkle and moving on to the next one as soon as possible. What I had to undo (since we don't delete user talk pages with substantial contributions like a welcome message) instead of G10 was later (at least) RevDeled (and possibly oversighted) when I had a chance to type up a request for it. — Gestrid ( talk) 04:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
<div>...</div>
tags, assigns a style to that div, and includes CSS designating that style as "display:none" Any browser that does not support CSS will display the content. Any browser with a local CSS file that overrides the designation will display the content. Search engines will receive the content. They may choose not to index it -- I don't now how search engines react to "Display:none". I am pretty sure that nothing requires them to ignore such content. That is why such blanking was called "a false sense of security" above. I am not sure if all templates that do blanking do it in this way, but I suspect that most do. What such blanking will do is hide the content from the ordinary reader unless that ready goes to some trouble.
DES
(talk) 23:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)To that I would ask what general criteria should people apply to turn the blanking parameter on. The page is already openly attacking someone, so we obviously couldn't have that as a criterion.I may be open to using a parameter, but the criteria for the parameter would have to be specific and, as I just quoted, couldn't use "It's an attack page" as one of them. It would also be hard to develop some sort of scale to "grade" attack pages on to determine whether or not the "level" of the attack warrants blanking. Also, I have a feeling that creating such a scale would just give vandals another "trophy" to achieve, and I believe WP:BEANS would apply in that situation. In my opinion, it's just best to leave it at one set level where all pages perceived to be attack pages get blanked (or not, depending on the outcome of this discussion). Like I said, though, I could maybe be convinced to accepts criteria on using the parameter if the criteria were very specific and left little room for an editor's own personal interpretation since we would be dealing with attack pages. I also think such criteria would need an RfC in order to be approved because it would essentially be an addition to policy. Twinkle and Huggle (among other lesser-known tools) would also have to be modified to allow users within their respective interfaces to set the parameter to yes or no or whatever we would use as options. — Gestrid ( talk) 07:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
With this edit Legacypac added draft space to the list of spaces where the Gx criteria apply. The edit was promptly reverted in this edit by Bbb23.
Now I have often disagreed with Legacypac on deletion issues, and no doubt will again. But here I think that he (or is it she? I don't know) has a point. Certainly some general criteria, such as copyright infringement and blatant promotion apply in draft space, and I see no reason why thy don't all except those that specifically exempt draft space. I suspect this is just wording that wasn't changed when draftspacce was introduced. I do like to see some discussion before policy pages like this are changed, but we are having that now. G1 and G2 don't apply in userspace, and probably shouldn't apply in draft space either, although the reasons aren't so strong. G4 excludes draft space under particular conditions, as was discussed recently.
Any other views? DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Legacypac ( talk) 00:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
G1 and G2 don't apply in userspace, and probably shouldn't apply in draft space either(emphasis added). People can, in the course of creating drafts, have partly-done pages which may look like nonsense. Similarly, tests might be appropriate in draft space. In user space, of course people can easily create nonsense in the course of learning how editing works, or testing templates, or for various other reasons, and may surely create test pages (I have several in my own userspace). I was suggesting (or perhaps just hinting at) extending the exemptions from G1 and G2, now valid for userspace, to draft space, not claiming that such exemptions are now in place. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 01:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Over CSD/Reviewing a few thousand articles, this has come up probably a half dozen times, which is not my concern primarily, but what is my concern is that we have reviewing admins who seem to be consistently applying a standard that has no basis in policy, and no broad consensus. Simply put, there is nothing in policy and no broad consensus saying that the existence of sources in and of themselves constitutes a claim of significance.
Previous discussions have all failed to find consensus on this either in principle or in the support of a concrete addition to policy ( [3], [4], [5], [6]) but it has nonetheless made it's way into this this essay, and being applied as if there is actually some consensus.
What there is consensus for (
WP:NOTCSD) is Reasons based on essays. ... are not valid reasons for speedy deletion.
and it is beyond me why this apparently works in one direction and not the other. Citing essays and multiple instances of prior non-consensus does not constitute a consensus in and of itself, even if the people who are applying it as such themselves happen to agree with it.
So part of me wants to open an RfC on this just to watch it fail, while the other bashes that part on the head and says "why the heck do we need a fifth failed effort at consensus to establish no consensus" and not inconsequentially "that's not your job anyway, if reviewing admins want to apply a new standard then the onus is on them to be the ones to establish consensus on the matter". TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Criteria that allows the use of admin tools without any discussionworks both ways. TimothyJosephWood 14:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
there is no consensus for defining this in anything else but essay-form. The final 2013 discussion is the one with real substance, and it's heavy on nuance but light on clear consensus, wording of whatever that consensus might be, or even how to interpret the proposed wording.
That should address the concerns mentioned above while also streamlining the currently cobbled-together A7 wording. Thoughts? Regards So Why 06:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Per this and the previous conversations this is kindof along the lines I'm thinking. I'd much rather start an RfC as a clear yes/no, but I loath to start an RfC with a better than average chance of being decidedly inconclusive one way or the other (read a complete waste of time). So I'd narrow it down to four options:
Note:This is not an RfC - This is a proposal for an RfC to see if anyone believes the wording options could be improved prior to beginning a period of comment.
- "the inclusion of a reliable source containing non-routine coverage of the subject usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is not a valid reason for nominating."
- "the inclusion of reliable, independent, and non-local sources containing non-routine coverage of the subject usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is not a valid reason for nominating."
- No additional language should be added because the sources included should not be a primary consideration when deciding whether the article's content makes a credible claim of significance
- No additional language should be added because considering the presence of sources is already implicit in the current guidance
Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"the inclusion of a source containing valid information more than a single name mention of the subject(s), usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is definitely not a valid reason for nominating. This guideline should be used with common sense."An article that links to a source is definitely not automatically out of the run for A7, but if the source—reliable or not—contains valid information more than a single name mention it is out from the application of A7, with common sense applied. A7 is supposed to be narrow in its application, and it has considerably become broader and broader as the years go on. J 947( c) 19:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Just add a footnote to "claim of significance" that says "A reliable source with more than a passing mention of the subject is generally a claim of significance. The lack of such a source itself is not a valid reason for an A7."
Again, as above, this isn't an RfC, but rather the start of an idea for an RfC. I understand the pushback against having important footnotes, but frankly, I think it's too hard to put as much as we want into a linear document. Another option would be to write a guideline that specifies what a "claim of significance" is, using the essay as a starting point, but I think that way lies madness. Hobit ( talk) 15:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so I've been trying to figure out how to do this in what apparently needs to be a multi-step AfC. My initial inclination was to have many more variations of options 1 and 2 (far) above, but that would make gauging consensus fairly difficult, since it would probably result in a half dozen or more options. So instead of deciding on wording first, what if we decided on principle first. Something like this: TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Note:This is not an RfC - This is a proposal for an RfC to see if anyone believes the wording options could be improved prior to beginning a period of comment.
- Some language should be included in the guidance for A7 regarding what types of sources should be considered in-and-of themselves a claim of significance. (That language will be decided in a future RfC.)
- No additional language should be added because the sources included should not be a primary consideration when deciding whether the article's content makes a credible claim of significance.
- No additional language should be added because considering the presence of sources is already implicit in the current guidance.
After the bot disaster, File PROD implementation per RfC, and more "orphaning" drama, I wonder about the F5 criterion (orphaned non-free image). The F5 is also enforced by WP:NFCC#7 (one-article minimum). Actually, when File PROD was used in the early start, I thought it could be frequently used and would surpass F5. However, the usage dwindled as of now. Meanwhile, Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files contains 1000+ files. (See also Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files.) Currently, I'm resisting temptations to remove images to make them orphaned and unused. Why orphaning files rather than using PROD or FFD? Maybe files are simple to remove, or why else? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
<!--Example.jpg not meeting NFCC#10c-->
) until the bot issue was fixed. Again, has the "orphaning" thing been gamed?
George Ho (
talk) 15:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC); Pinging
Jo-Jo Eumerus. 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're writing an article about a guy whose claim to fame mostly consists of bad stuff he's alleged to have done, I think the way to do it is to just not include any negative information about him in the first revision. You just look at the articles about him and find everything you can that's positive and put that in the article instead. Here's an example.
The folks at NPP tend to have a hair-trigger mentality where they want to delete any article that says there's some controversy surrounding a living person, regardless of how well-sourced the article's coverage of these controversies is. So, just avoiding all mention of such things is the only way to prevent deletion. Compy book ( talk) 01:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently, Template:no source and Template:nosource, both of which redirect to template:di-no source, are nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:No source, where I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Is changing a tag or adding a tag the sort of edit that prevents speedy deletion? See here, where the article speedy was declined on that basis (and even more - the editor declining said that the request for speedy was an "edit" to the article that pushes off a future speedy by an additional six months). I understand User:Nyttend has a view that is different from mine.-- 2604:2000:E016:A700:A00C:7F46:822D:9F12 ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Do set-index articles count as articles in the context of AfD, i.e. can criteria for articles be used to speedy delete a set-index article? My understanding is that disambiguation pages are not treated as articles for CSD, but what about pages that mark themselves as set indices? f e minist 10:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list.older ≠ wiser 12:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Example creates User:Example/X. The page bears no articles for creation template. User:Place holder either simply adds {{ AFC submission}} to it or moves it to Draft:X (perhaps per WP:STALEDRAFT) and adds {{ AFC submission}}. Six months later User:Place holder or another user requests it be deleted per G13. This seems like blatant gaming the system (or an end run if you will) to subvert the deletion process to me. Any thoughts? An exception stating something like "in the case of userspace drafts or drafts moved from the userspace to draftspace, the {{ AFC submission}} temlate must be added by the creator to qualify for deletion" could be added; someone recently posted something related to this (I'm not sure whether or not they've used the practice in the past), and I've recently seen userspace drafts which bore no {{ AFC submission}} template moved to draftspace and submitted to articles for creation by a user other then their creator. However, this probably isn't a common problem, so maybe a note at Help:Userspace draft would suffice. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 02:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's take a step back and consider the various valid reasons for deleting drafts. Unreviewed drafts may be attack pages, may contain libel or copyright violations. They may violate various provisions of the BLP policy or simply be spam. Such drafts must be deleted, and we have various speedy deletion criteria to get rid of the worst of them. Such problems are normally caught and dealt with in the AFC review process. Even abandoned drafts that do not have any of the aforementioned issues, or have never been through AFC, will at some point be regarded as violating the NOTWEBHOST rule, pages that do not in some way contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia.
The U5 Speedy criterion currently covers NOTWEBHOST pages only in Userspace. However such pages do not neccessarily exist only in Userspace, thus I think U5 could be changed to a G# criterion which would then apply to all namespaces. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this is a trivial question. I see a lot of stubs, usually with no references, about individual musical performers or rappers who have no particular claim to fame other than that they perform. (Nearly everybody performs at something sometimes.) My question is simply: Is there any particular reason to tag them as A7, person, or as A7, musician? If it is one person, they are a person and a musician. (If the article is also promotional, it is easier, because for a multiple tag, I just use a generic A7 and G11). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
I wanted to get people's thoughts on this before I formally propose it since it would potentially dramatically increase the number of article subject to speedy deletion.
The
notability standards for musical albums is pretty basic as far as notability standards goes. No inheritance, must have been discussed in independent reliable sources, etc. However, just from personal experience it seems like album inclusion as a separate article is far closer to "it exists" than any semblance to meeting the actual notability standards. These do not meet A7 and 99% of the time do not meet A9 as it doesn't meet both conditions of the criterion. This leaves AfD or PROD which is a drawn out process. So, what are people's opinions on modifying the A9 criterion to strike the both conditions must be met
part?
Note: This is not a RfC. More of a straw poll to see what people's thoughts are on the matter. -- Majora ( talk) 00:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Q: Are crammers schools for the purposes of A7? They're privately run businesses which appear to be sneaking the protection given to secondary schools. Crammers aren't compulsory education. They're not part of the normal K-12 educational process. They have no place in the standard flow. They ought not to get the exemption provided for schools. Cabayi ( talk) 09:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been a bit perturbed by the notion that some admins are shy of the topic for fear of deletion review. I was also taken by Iridescent's point that it's about "educational institutions", not schools; also by Adam9007's point about the linked article. So, time for a little research...
The schools exemption was added on 2 Oct 2008, then changed to, and linked to educational institution on 26 Aug 2011.
The establishments listed at educational institution have included clown college, sex universities, and Siting on your ass all day doing nothing. But the list has NEVER included crammer schools.
It seems clear to me that crammer schools are not protected from A7, but that they have gained that protection through intimidation. Do we need an RfC to clarify?
I'm also concerned that the wiki's policy leans on an unprotected article. In practical terms this would have meant that, at some point in the past, clown colleges and sex universities were protected from A7. Shouldn't the article have a little protection? Cabayi ( talk) 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
A11: An article that indicates that the subject is not worthy of inclusion, without any evidence to the contrary. This includes things claimed to be recently invented or discovered as well articles that describe the subject as insignificant. A lack of information about the subject is NOT sufficient for A11. Unverifiable claims inserted by anyone other than the first author aren't sufficient for A11 either.
This would not only include all "We discovered/invented this a week ago, and wanted to share it on Wikipedia" articles but also any other article that indicates that the subject NOT belong to Wikipedia. Articles that describe the subject as something that isn't really important, WP:Run in the mill things, or such... It is very unlikely that these should have an article. Burning Pillar ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
So, I think that the current first sentence of
A7,
This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization,
web content or organized event
[1] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of
educational institutions.
[2]
should be changed to this:
This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization,
web content or organized event
[1] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of
schools and post-secondary institutions (such as
colleges) that are
educational institutions.
[2]
My reasoning for this is because of the fact that "educational institutions" can include things that I think that we agree should not be lumped in with schools, such as companies for
educational consultants. And, even if most administrators would delete these pages due to differing definitions of "educational institutions". At least a few, although, broadly define the term "educational institutions", and are hesitant in deleting it. Thus, this is in fact a problem. The next step is fixing it. I think that this is making steps towards this. I did include the phrase "that are educational institutions" because of the fact that "schools and post-secondary institutions" might include things such as driving schools, or private companies that are considered to be schools but not educational institutions. Thus, the "that are educational institutions" is not redundant.
References
This is a notice to inform interested editors that someone proposed a change to this policy at WP:VPP. The section is called " CSD tag for WP:NOT violations". Regards So Why 06:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Of the non-media file types listed in the examples for F10, only PDF is currently technologically permitted to be uploaded on enwp. Should we remove the other examples? – Train2104 ( t • c) 04:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose :
A12: An article that was created more than one month ago that is completely unsourced.
It meets most of the criteria: Objective- yes, no sources at all are no sources. Uncontestable- yes, per WP:V:"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The existance of the article subject needs a source, always. Frequent-sort of. These articles are , currently at 206335 articles. Sending even half of that number to AFD would make it implode. They are simply not listed there for that precise reason, that is they weren't until now. Nonredundant-This is where I am not sure. You could simply remove the unsupported material(which is permitted) and then you could CSD it via A3 or A1(because there is nothing left, at least nothing that defines the article subject). But on the other hand, the CSD criteria are usually applied only when they apply to all pages in the history. Burning Pillar ( talk) 23:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose expanding A9 like this:
I think we can all agree that it makes no sense to have to wait for an artist's article to be speedy deleted before articles for their recordings can be tagged for A9 deletion. This way, the reviewing admin can first check the artist, decide whether to delete their page and then can handle the recordings afterwards. Regards So Why 08:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm grateful for the copyvios report and wonder how it relates to tagging for deletion under G12. In this instance -> National Flagship was so tagged, but copvios gave a likelihood of 3.8%. The only duplication was less than a dozen words, some of which could not be rewritten to have the sense of the thing. Just wondering how the whole thing works. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 13:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just had my {{ db-inc}} on Shaftesbury Hotel Perth Western Australia changed to a prod, with the reason "non-notable building".
Aside from the format of the article title, it seems to me that this change was made on the basis that the one sentence that's there purely describes the building and its location, not the hotel business. (While it appears that the hotel may no longer exist, this doesn't seem to be a case where a building that was once a hotel later became a building of historical interest, which would be another matter.)
Is this a sufficient criterion for an article to be out of A7 scope? Furthermore, if an article about a commercial building contains information about both the business and the building, then does this bar use of A7 on the basis that the information about the building can be kept (at least pending a prod or AfD being raised) even if it has no CCS? — Smjg ( talk) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
While I'm here- Is it possible to have such a box (don't know the tech term, sorry) that appears when you choose the 'U5' criterion? Similar to G5, G6, G12, etc. It would be useful for editors to explain how the page reaches that criterion, wouldn't it? E.g, 'per [[WP:NOTXYZ]].' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The page Marcus Hutchins has been created to detail the researcher who stopped the WannaCry ransomware attack. This is despite his previous request that he remain anonymous for his safety:
MalwareTech said he preferred to stay anonymous “because it just doesn’t make sense to give out my personal information, obviously we’re working against bad guys and they’re not going to be happy about this.” [1]
Is there any means by which this can be CSD'ed for the researcher's safety? — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 11:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
He actually commented having a wikipedia account about him on his twitter account, saying that he would prefer it be under his online nickname instead. 88.111.90.73 ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
References
A page I created was speedily deleted without pretext and was quoted as "a personal attack", meanwhile I couldn't contest this and the editor threatened to block me, how do I report this? Donald Trung ( talk) 13:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss this part of G4 briefly. Most of the speedy criteria are set up so that there isn't a whole lot of a judgement call going on--the intent is that speedies are for cases that are "obvious". But this part seems to be asking the deleting admin to guess why someone did something. If a user has a draft of a deleted article in user space and is working to improve it, it might only be there to "circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", or it might be there to hopefully recreate a functional article. I don't think I'm comfortable with an admin deleting a draft because of their read of the motives of the user. What are best practices here? Is that parenthetical actually important to keep around? Could we change this that G4 only applies in draft space if a draft was previously deleted via a deletion discussion? Hobit ( talk) 14:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I just want to know why only userspace pages get speedy deleted per NOTWEBHOST? I know just a little about this and don't know why it doesn't apply (the CSD, not the policy) to other namespaces. Thanks in advance. Lil Johnny ( talk) ( contribs) 05:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This junk, if placed in mainspace, would be reverted. Legacypac ( talk) 02:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Should we make {{ Db-g12}} courtesy blank the page like {{ Db-g10}} does? It should be noted that {{ subst:copyvio}} already does this for possible copyright violations. G12 is used for definite copyright violations. — Gestrid ( talk) 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.
Also Twinkle discription says User Pages: G11 Promotional userpage under a promotional user name. When you click ? It says "a promotional user name which promotes or implies affiliation with the thing being promoted. ... if a userpage is spammy but the username is not consider tagging with regular G11 instead.
I keep finding non-notable musicians and youtubers like this guy User:Greenmonsta92/Nick Corjay which seem to match Userpage G11 exactly and especially the twinkle instructions. His username is his brand/alterego mentioned 7 times on the short page beyond the title. No indication of meeting GNG. What kind of page does User G11 cover if not this? In other cases its User:XYZ or User:XYZ/XYZ and all about promoting XYZ. Often there are spam links too. It looks like WP:PROMO point 5 to me. What am I missing in my application of G11? Legacypac ( talk) 10:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be difficult just trying to understand. I'd expect a widely used tool like twinkle is compliant with policy as "someone" understands it. Legacypac ( talk) 10:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
When I've reported new usernames like this they get instablocked but I don't report inactive promotional usernames. I assume everyone agrees this is a promotional username right?
Perhaps there is a range of opinion on what is promotional? Most advertising is not like late night infomercial promotional style. Legacypac ( talk) 10:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I assume everyone agrees this is a promotional username right?Well no, it isn't. Our policy says promotional usernames consist of:
Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product ... Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com") that promote a commercial web page and don't simply identify a person. Nothing is said about stage names. It appears that "Greenmonsta92" or perhaps just "Greenmonsta" is the stage name of Nick Corjay, and that the user is probably Corjay, or perhaps a fan. He may well have had promotional intent. But if this name were posted at WP:UAA, I would decline to block with the "Not a blatant violation" template after having checked out the user's contributions. A user is free to identify with a legal name, a long-standing nickname, or a stage name, provided there is no issue of impersonation. The page should not have been CSD tagged, and the user name should not be reported at UAA. DES (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the insights into the thinking on the other side of CSD I'll modify my G11s appropriately. Legacypac ( talk) 08:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
We could take a lot of load off MfD and CSD by changing this template to blank the page.
This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see
Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL |
. Nearly all the 30,000 pages its used on should be CSD/MfD or blanked anyway for various problems. I understand the template only applies to pages over 1 year old. Legacypac ( talk) 19:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. There is at least one other version that does hide the content, but this is the main template used. For the rare active user templated thus, I'd suggest removing the template. Legacypac ( talk) 20:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
"Blanking automatically allows the rare user who comes back over a year later to continue (which maybe undesirable in many case where the page should be deleted.) Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)"Agree, very much. Deleting pages is very bitey for tentative contributors. Tentative contributors include people who put their toe in, and then return a couple of years later. Many active, valuable regular contributors have early contribution histories that match this pattern. Maybe this is talking about one in ten thousand draftspace drive-by contributors. I think they are worth reaching out to, until presented with evidence to say otherwise. I seriously do not understand why Wikipedia new registrants are not auto-welcomed. The {{ welcome}} template gives them a much nicer welcome and better advice than does WP:AFC. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been promoting the very best of stale userspace because there was such a cry against losing possibly useful content. For my efforts, some of the same people frantic to preserve old user drafts in case it might be useful are trying to impose bans against me from page moves or BLP on me at ANi right now. If the rapid inclusionists don't want the best of the material in mainspace, let's hide it all. Legacypac ( talk) 02:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure not moving content to mainspace to seek deletion. In one slightly embarrassing case I failed to detect copy vio (I think off a pdf) while researching the notability of the topic. Obvious if I'd found copyvio I'd have speedied the userpage. In one other case an experienced new page reviewer questioned notability and after a bunch more checking decided to AfD it. We both agreed it was a borderline case, and I deferred to his judgement. AfD will decide. Anything else questioned or tagged I defend and try to overcome the objections. Legacypac ( talk) 04:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The WFLabs created The New Page Feed /info/en/?search=Special:NewPagesFeed allows selection of User or Article pages. Reviewing new user pages there shows the same issues exist as in the "Stale" pages. Currently
A good portion of the reviewed this week is my reviews. I did a bunch of the new pages and found exactly the same mix of issues. Clearly there is no way we can keep up and we need an automated blanking solution. Legacypac ( talk) 22:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Any way to put a time constraint in it. It blanks the page if creation date is more than 1 year ago? No one is trying to blank recently created pages. Legacypac ( talk) 02:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Stale drafts - In MfDs of "stale user drafts" I have most often seen the term used to refer to drafts that are out of date because there is a newer version around, either in Draft space or in mainspace. These need to be deleted or merged, not just blanked.. No. A newer version calls for a redirect of the older version to the newer version. Accidental content forks should be fixed by redirection. The redirect tells everyone, especially the old author, where the topic now is. Not infrequently, the old version is connected to the new version, and deletion will hide evidence of failure to attribute. Also, "out of date" and "better version" can be matters of opinion that can change, better to leave it for editors to be able to fix. No need to make the permanent decision and hide the records. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk)
As you point out, the number of [UP#NOT] vastly exceeds valid drafts. Deleting is not needed, but "blanking during periods of inactivity" is established practice no one contests. Automating long standing practice should not violate policy. Legacypac ( talk) 03:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
... is not mandated nor suggested by any policy or guideline, can you link to any policy or guideline page I have overlooked? Can anyone?
It is not "long standing practice" in my experience. While I can hardly be wrong about my own experience, it may be that my experience is not representative. Can you (or anyone) show diffs of several different editors, over a period of several years, doing such blanking?
Such blanking hinders any effort to collaboratively resume editing on such pages, thereby attacking the very basis of Wikipedia. Do you deny that such blanking hinders any effort to collaboratively resume editing on the pages involved? Or do you think I am mistaken that collaborative editing is at the heart of Wikipedia?
mistaken, on basically every point? Do you think an RFC on this issue would be helpful? DES (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
"blanking during periods of inactivity" is established practice no one contests. Automating long standing practice should not violate policy.. That is the
such blankingthat I did and do take exception to, a blanking that, as far as I understand, makes no distinctions based on the problematic nature of the page, or its lack of such nature. That is what I suggest is not established practice: knee-jerk blanking of every userspace draft older than some particular age. I think it might be argued whether a few thousand uses of a blanking template constitute "established practice", but it clearly is not an effectively automated practice. Note that WP:CSD#U5 says
...with the exception of plausible drafts...and so is not relevant to a mass-blanking. I do support U5, and have deleted pages tagged under it this very day (although as with several criteria, I think it is often over-used.) Perhaps that clarifies my views a bit. DES (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Blanking has been in the Stale User Draft category (current [Category:Stale userspace drafts]) instructions since March 2015
[1]. But the idea predates that I'm sure.
Working through
WP:ABANDONED drafts is a long standing thing at [Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts] back to 2011 and also since Nov 2015 at this subpage of the same Wikiproject
[2] where blanking is one of the options to consider. The idea has been to eventially empty the category, as unrealistic as that might be. In my view the only "Abandoned" or "Stale" drafts in userspace should be stuff active editors plan to work on and these pages should be deleted from the stale category. Anything utterly useless written by a departed editor should be deleted, redirected at a mainspace topic, moved to Draft space under an appropriate Draft title so others can find it and feel empowered to work on it, or promoted to main space if suitable as at least a stub or merger material. Its a maintenance category and every page should be processed out of the category. Otherwise it just grows and grows and those of us that work it end up evaluating the same pages over and over.
Even in the hot debates with rabid inclusionists last year I never recall anyone demanding we not blank. In fact they advocated that was the overriding policy and we should not be using CSD and MfD for cleanup. Legacypac ( talk) 00:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
In cases where the main user page has been used to create drafts whose subject already is in the mainspace, and the user is inactive, replace the contents of the user page with {{ Inactive userpage blanked}}. That applies only to pages where the subject is already covered by an article in mainspace, not that a category page exactly defines policy. DES (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
To find useful articles (gems) in the garbage pile you have to sort the garbage pile. If you just toss the assessed garbage back on the pile, instead of disposing of it permanently, you and the next gem searchers have to reassess the same garbage again and again as you hunt. Over time the gem hunting gets harder and harder as the ratio of garbage to gems rises.
Arguably the garbage pile is so big already it makes sense to at least hide the garbage (if not burn it all in place). When I am threatened with topic bans at ANi for moving the best gems forward, by the same people who object to to deleting garbage because there might be a gem, it gets pretty discouraging. I don't see any of the loadest voices at ANi actually assessing pages or actioning them.
The flip example is NPP. If we did not remove Patrolled articles from the Patrolling list how would we ever find the garbage? We'd be patrolling and repatrolling forever. Legacypac ( talk) 02:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Occasionally I find userpages with extended personal info. Like DOB, full name, parents full names, place born, address, phone numbers, facebook link etc. One case that really concerned me was a 10 year old girl complete with b-day and school she attends. Others are more like a social networking attempt. What is the correct procedure in these cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
User:C.murugan engineer? Treating WP as social networking site or self promotion? Would you accept a CSD? New page, no other edits yet. Legacypac ( talk) 17:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If there is other possibly useful content on the page. DES (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ db-g10}} (attack pages) currently blanks the content of the page with which it is tagged. It does so not by deleting (much less revdel-ing) the content, but simply marking it with CSS so that it will not be displayed. This does not prevent non-css browsers, text-only browsers, and speech browsers from displaying the content, nor does it prevent search engines from indexing the content. Thus it gives a largely false sense of security that the content is not being displayed. It also makes it just that little bit harder for a reviewing admin to determine if the page should in fact be deleted.
In article space this blanking is perhaps justified, although nothing requires it. (Nor is it specified in the criterion itself.) But in draft or userspace where search engines do not index pages anyway, this serves less purpose. Comments in the #Template:G12 courtesy blanking section suggests that others agree with this idea. I therefore propose that the template be made namespace-aware, and not blank content in the draft or user namespaces. (Alternatively it could blank only when an explicit optional parameter calls for blanking.) Many templates are namespace-aware, this is not technically a problem. DES (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively it could blank only when an explicit optional parameter calls for blanking.You do have a point that criteria for using such a parameter would be hard to define. While it is true that some attacks are far more serious than others ("Joe Blow rapes little girls." is a bit more serious than "Joe Blow never formats citations correctly."), deciding where to draw the line, or how to judge relative seriousness in less clear-cut cases might be more trouble than it is worth, so perhaps this idea isn't such a good one. DES (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
To comment further on my doing 2c, my main experience with G10 involved a fast-moving vandal that was copy-pasting the same message to multiple pages, mainly in the talk/ user talk namespaces. I had to keep up with them without rollback (I discovered them using the CVN IRC channel.), so I was tagging with Twinkle and moving on to the next one as soon as possible. What I had to undo (since we don't delete user talk pages with substantial contributions like a welcome message) instead of G10 was later (at least) RevDeled (and possibly oversighted) when I had a chance to type up a request for it. — Gestrid ( talk) 04:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
<div>...</div>
tags, assigns a style to that div, and includes CSS designating that style as "display:none" Any browser that does not support CSS will display the content. Any browser with a local CSS file that overrides the designation will display the content. Search engines will receive the content. They may choose not to index it -- I don't now how search engines react to "Display:none". I am pretty sure that nothing requires them to ignore such content. That is why such blanking was called "a false sense of security" above. I am not sure if all templates that do blanking do it in this way, but I suspect that most do. What such blanking will do is hide the content from the ordinary reader unless that ready goes to some trouble.
DES
(talk) 23:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)To that I would ask what general criteria should people apply to turn the blanking parameter on. The page is already openly attacking someone, so we obviously couldn't have that as a criterion.I may be open to using a parameter, but the criteria for the parameter would have to be specific and, as I just quoted, couldn't use "It's an attack page" as one of them. It would also be hard to develop some sort of scale to "grade" attack pages on to determine whether or not the "level" of the attack warrants blanking. Also, I have a feeling that creating such a scale would just give vandals another "trophy" to achieve, and I believe WP:BEANS would apply in that situation. In my opinion, it's just best to leave it at one set level where all pages perceived to be attack pages get blanked (or not, depending on the outcome of this discussion). Like I said, though, I could maybe be convinced to accepts criteria on using the parameter if the criteria were very specific and left little room for an editor's own personal interpretation since we would be dealing with attack pages. I also think such criteria would need an RfC in order to be approved because it would essentially be an addition to policy. Twinkle and Huggle (among other lesser-known tools) would also have to be modified to allow users within their respective interfaces to set the parameter to yes or no or whatever we would use as options. — Gestrid ( talk) 07:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
With this edit Legacypac added draft space to the list of spaces where the Gx criteria apply. The edit was promptly reverted in this edit by Bbb23.
Now I have often disagreed with Legacypac on deletion issues, and no doubt will again. But here I think that he (or is it she? I don't know) has a point. Certainly some general criteria, such as copyright infringement and blatant promotion apply in draft space, and I see no reason why thy don't all except those that specifically exempt draft space. I suspect this is just wording that wasn't changed when draftspacce was introduced. I do like to see some discussion before policy pages like this are changed, but we are having that now. G1 and G2 don't apply in userspace, and probably shouldn't apply in draft space either, although the reasons aren't so strong. G4 excludes draft space under particular conditions, as was discussed recently.
Any other views? DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Legacypac ( talk) 00:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
G1 and G2 don't apply in userspace, and probably shouldn't apply in draft space either(emphasis added). People can, in the course of creating drafts, have partly-done pages which may look like nonsense. Similarly, tests might be appropriate in draft space. In user space, of course people can easily create nonsense in the course of learning how editing works, or testing templates, or for various other reasons, and may surely create test pages (I have several in my own userspace). I was suggesting (or perhaps just hinting at) extending the exemptions from G1 and G2, now valid for userspace, to draft space, not claiming that such exemptions are now in place. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 01:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Over CSD/Reviewing a few thousand articles, this has come up probably a half dozen times, which is not my concern primarily, but what is my concern is that we have reviewing admins who seem to be consistently applying a standard that has no basis in policy, and no broad consensus. Simply put, there is nothing in policy and no broad consensus saying that the existence of sources in and of themselves constitutes a claim of significance.
Previous discussions have all failed to find consensus on this either in principle or in the support of a concrete addition to policy ( [3], [4], [5], [6]) but it has nonetheless made it's way into this this essay, and being applied as if there is actually some consensus.
What there is consensus for (
WP:NOTCSD) is Reasons based on essays. ... are not valid reasons for speedy deletion.
and it is beyond me why this apparently works in one direction and not the other. Citing essays and multiple instances of prior non-consensus does not constitute a consensus in and of itself, even if the people who are applying it as such themselves happen to agree with it.
So part of me wants to open an RfC on this just to watch it fail, while the other bashes that part on the head and says "why the heck do we need a fifth failed effort at consensus to establish no consensus" and not inconsequentially "that's not your job anyway, if reviewing admins want to apply a new standard then the onus is on them to be the ones to establish consensus on the matter". TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Criteria that allows the use of admin tools without any discussionworks both ways. TimothyJosephWood 14:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
there is no consensus for defining this in anything else but essay-form. The final 2013 discussion is the one with real substance, and it's heavy on nuance but light on clear consensus, wording of whatever that consensus might be, or even how to interpret the proposed wording.
That should address the concerns mentioned above while also streamlining the currently cobbled-together A7 wording. Thoughts? Regards So Why 06:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Per this and the previous conversations this is kindof along the lines I'm thinking. I'd much rather start an RfC as a clear yes/no, but I loath to start an RfC with a better than average chance of being decidedly inconclusive one way or the other (read a complete waste of time). So I'd narrow it down to four options:
Note:This is not an RfC - This is a proposal for an RfC to see if anyone believes the wording options could be improved prior to beginning a period of comment.
- "the inclusion of a reliable source containing non-routine coverage of the subject usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is not a valid reason for nominating."
- "the inclusion of reliable, independent, and non-local sources containing non-routine coverage of the subject usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is not a valid reason for nominating."
- No additional language should be added because the sources included should not be a primary consideration when deciding whether the article's content makes a credible claim of significance
- No additional language should be added because considering the presence of sources is already implicit in the current guidance
Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
"the inclusion of a source containing valid information more than a single name mention of the subject(s), usually indicates significance, although the lack of the sources itself is definitely not a valid reason for nominating. This guideline should be used with common sense."An article that links to a source is definitely not automatically out of the run for A7, but if the source—reliable or not—contains valid information more than a single name mention it is out from the application of A7, with common sense applied. A7 is supposed to be narrow in its application, and it has considerably become broader and broader as the years go on. J 947( c) 19:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Just add a footnote to "claim of significance" that says "A reliable source with more than a passing mention of the subject is generally a claim of significance. The lack of such a source itself is not a valid reason for an A7."
Again, as above, this isn't an RfC, but rather the start of an idea for an RfC. I understand the pushback against having important footnotes, but frankly, I think it's too hard to put as much as we want into a linear document. Another option would be to write a guideline that specifies what a "claim of significance" is, using the essay as a starting point, but I think that way lies madness. Hobit ( talk) 15:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so I've been trying to figure out how to do this in what apparently needs to be a multi-step AfC. My initial inclination was to have many more variations of options 1 and 2 (far) above, but that would make gauging consensus fairly difficult, since it would probably result in a half dozen or more options. So instead of deciding on wording first, what if we decided on principle first. Something like this: TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Note:This is not an RfC - This is a proposal for an RfC to see if anyone believes the wording options could be improved prior to beginning a period of comment.
- Some language should be included in the guidance for A7 regarding what types of sources should be considered in-and-of themselves a claim of significance. (That language will be decided in a future RfC.)
- No additional language should be added because the sources included should not be a primary consideration when deciding whether the article's content makes a credible claim of significance.
- No additional language should be added because considering the presence of sources is already implicit in the current guidance.
After the bot disaster, File PROD implementation per RfC, and more "orphaning" drama, I wonder about the F5 criterion (orphaned non-free image). The F5 is also enforced by WP:NFCC#7 (one-article minimum). Actually, when File PROD was used in the early start, I thought it could be frequently used and would surpass F5. However, the usage dwindled as of now. Meanwhile, Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files contains 1000+ files. (See also Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files.) Currently, I'm resisting temptations to remove images to make them orphaned and unused. Why orphaning files rather than using PROD or FFD? Maybe files are simple to remove, or why else? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
<!--Example.jpg not meeting NFCC#10c-->
) until the bot issue was fixed. Again, has the "orphaning" thing been gamed?
George Ho (
talk) 15:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC); Pinging
Jo-Jo Eumerus. 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're writing an article about a guy whose claim to fame mostly consists of bad stuff he's alleged to have done, I think the way to do it is to just not include any negative information about him in the first revision. You just look at the articles about him and find everything you can that's positive and put that in the article instead. Here's an example.
The folks at NPP tend to have a hair-trigger mentality where they want to delete any article that says there's some controversy surrounding a living person, regardless of how well-sourced the article's coverage of these controversies is. So, just avoiding all mention of such things is the only way to prevent deletion. Compy book ( talk) 01:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently, Template:no source and Template:nosource, both of which redirect to template:di-no source, are nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:No source, where I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Is changing a tag or adding a tag the sort of edit that prevents speedy deletion? See here, where the article speedy was declined on that basis (and even more - the editor declining said that the request for speedy was an "edit" to the article that pushes off a future speedy by an additional six months). I understand User:Nyttend has a view that is different from mine.-- 2604:2000:E016:A700:A00C:7F46:822D:9F12 ( talk) 18:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Do set-index articles count as articles in the context of AfD, i.e. can criteria for articles be used to speedy delete a set-index article? My understanding is that disambiguation pages are not treated as articles for CSD, but what about pages that mark themselves as set indices? f e minist 10:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list.older ≠ wiser 12:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Example creates User:Example/X. The page bears no articles for creation template. User:Place holder either simply adds {{ AFC submission}} to it or moves it to Draft:X (perhaps per WP:STALEDRAFT) and adds {{ AFC submission}}. Six months later User:Place holder or another user requests it be deleted per G13. This seems like blatant gaming the system (or an end run if you will) to subvert the deletion process to me. Any thoughts? An exception stating something like "in the case of userspace drafts or drafts moved from the userspace to draftspace, the {{ AFC submission}} temlate must be added by the creator to qualify for deletion" could be added; someone recently posted something related to this (I'm not sure whether or not they've used the practice in the past), and I've recently seen userspace drafts which bore no {{ AFC submission}} template moved to draftspace and submitted to articles for creation by a user other then their creator. However, this probably isn't a common problem, so maybe a note at Help:Userspace draft would suffice. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 02:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's take a step back and consider the various valid reasons for deleting drafts. Unreviewed drafts may be attack pages, may contain libel or copyright violations. They may violate various provisions of the BLP policy or simply be spam. Such drafts must be deleted, and we have various speedy deletion criteria to get rid of the worst of them. Such problems are normally caught and dealt with in the AFC review process. Even abandoned drafts that do not have any of the aforementioned issues, or have never been through AFC, will at some point be regarded as violating the NOTWEBHOST rule, pages that do not in some way contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia.
The U5 Speedy criterion currently covers NOTWEBHOST pages only in Userspace. However such pages do not neccessarily exist only in Userspace, thus I think U5 could be changed to a G# criterion which would then apply to all namespaces. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this is a trivial question. I see a lot of stubs, usually with no references, about individual musical performers or rappers who have no particular claim to fame other than that they perform. (Nearly everybody performs at something sometimes.) My question is simply: Is there any particular reason to tag them as A7, person, or as A7, musician? If it is one person, they are a person and a musician. (If the article is also promotional, it is easier, because for a multiple tag, I just use a generic A7 and G11). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)