![]() | Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria
Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be
If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page. this header:
view •
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criteria for speedy deletion page. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
39,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48,
49,
50,
51,
52,
53,
54,
55,
56,
57,
58,
59,
60,
61,
62,
63,
64,
65,
66,
67,
68,
69,
70,
71,
72,
73,
74,
75,
76,
77,
78,
79,
80,
81,
82,
83,
84,
85,
86,
87,
88Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Imagine that I create User talk:Nyttend/subpage. Assuming that there's no problem with the content I put on the page, it's a perfectly fine page; we wouldn't delete it on G8 merely because User:Nyttend/subpage doesn't exist. Now, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with problematic content, e.g. blatant spam. Someone comes around and deletes it. Should the talk page be deleted (because it's the talk page of a deleted page), or should it remain (because it's a valid subpage in userspace), or is this something we should just leave up to admin judgement?
Also, imagine that I create
User:Nyttend/subpage with the content #REDIRECT
ebwtriypnry0tiw5mr4te5
, or I create the page with valid content and then replace it with the broken redirect. G8 (redirect to nonexistent page), or keep (established user's subpage), or admin judgement?
This just now came to mind as I was deleting spam in userspace; I deleted User talk:BassettHousePic/sandbox after deleting User:BassettHousePic/sandbox, and I'm not sure this is always right. Here it was (the user's been spamblocked and has no other edits), but that won't always be the case, especially if the userpage is deleted via U1. Nyttend ( talk) 23:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
So, this is something I've seen happen in some cases, usually involving inexperienced editors who have just gotten autoconfirmed. First there is the instance I've dealt with, where an article is draftified (when I've done it, it's usually for lacking references) and the author immediately recreates it by either moving it or, more often, by copy-paste. I haven't seen an exact consensus on what to do in this instance. Some have said db-copypaste might apply, but not all admins will delete in this instance. The other options would be re-draftify, PROD, or AfD.
The other instance would be declined or rejected AfC submissions that are moved or copied to mainspace without improvement. My understanding is that declined AfC pages that are resubmitted without improvement are usually summarily declined. If a submission is declined multiple times, that would indicate consensus that the page, in its present state, is unsuitable to be an article, putting it in a similar position to a page that meets G4. TornadoLGS ( talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Currently, if I want to delete
Module:Sandbox/Nickps or one of its subpages, I have to use G7, which means that if another editor edits it, I will have to go to MFD to get it deleted. However, those pages are user sandboxes (see
Module:Module sandbox for the communal sandbox) and are only placed in the Module namespace for technical reasons, so U1 should apply instead. So, I propose that the first sentence of U1 is changed into Personal
user pages,
subpages as well as Module:Sandbox/<the user's name> and its subpages (but not
their corresponding talk pages) upon request by their user.
Nickps (
talk)
23:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit the idea of creating a new speedy deletion for criterion for articles created in violation of the
Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use's prohibition of
undisclosed paid editing
. This was
previously proposed in 2017 but narrowly failed to achieve consensus. However, I think that many of the assumptions made in that discussion are no longer valid in 2024, due to the changing nature of undisclosed paid editing. Specifically, the closer wrote the objection to the proposed criterion was based on the following:
the relative vagueness and/or subjectivity of its definition and/or applicability in practice due to frequency of edge cases– we have become much more organised about handling undisclosed paid editing cases since 2017. There is now an off-wiki reporting mechanism and a group of trusted functionaries actively monitoring it. Blocks for UPE based on nonpublic evidence are documented on-wiki using a process set by ArbCom, similar to checkuser blocks. Adding a clarifying bullet to the new criterion saying that it is only applicable if UPE is demonstrated by solid evidence on-wiki (rare in practice) or endorsed by a functionary should therefore be sufficient to overcome this objection. It wouldn't be any more vague or subjective than G5.
other criteria already cover most cases (e.g., WP:A7, WP:G11)– UPE operations are smarter than they were seven years ago (or if they didn't get smarter, they couldn't survive). They don't write articles that without a claim of significance, they create the appearance of notability by WP:REFBOMBing citations to articles they have paid to be placed in superficially reliable sources. They don't write blatant advertisements, they just only write positive things and neglect to include anything their client doesn't want mentioned. I cannot remember the last time I came across a UPE creation that was so clear-cut as to meet these criteria.
the normal, slower deletion processes are sufficient given a purportedly low incidence of pages that would meet the proposed criteria– the functionaries receive reports of undisclosed paid editing almost daily, and it is not unusual for them to reveal dozens of paid creations. Sending them en masse to AfD would flood it, and discussion there is in any case complicated by the nonpublic nature of the grounds for deletion.
Another approach suggested in the past was to expand G5 to cover these. And it is true that the vast majority of the regular UPErs we see were blocked long ago. But I don't think this is a good approach for two reasons. First, we frequently can't link them to a specific blocked account. Second, the more successful UPErs have moved away from sockfarms and instead hire one-off freelancers to post articles for them. This technically doesn't preclude G5 but does make it a lot less clear cut and in practice I think it has become less and less useful for UPE.
I'm not proposing this criterion right now. I'd like to hear whether others think it is viable and workshop the wording a bit first (so please hold the support/opposes). – Joe ( talk) 08:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
In practice, over my 12 years here, I have seen almost no satisfactory articles from people who are writing an article for money. – Joe ( talk) 10:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
My experience with works accused of being UPE is that very often these accusations are made with little or no visible evidence. Sometimes even when the accuser is directly asked they will refuse to provide any evidence on the basis of not spilling beans. If an editor is actually determined to be a UPE-creator and blocked for it we can apply G5. If it's blatantly promotional we can apply G11. If neither, we need a clear and transparent process, not a hidden and unanswerable tribunal of UPE-inquisitors. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
the more successful UPErs have moved away from sockfarms and instead hire one-off freelancers to post articles for themand the freelancers were never themselves blocked. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deletedcould also be demonstrated by consensus in an RfC, for example. – Joe ( talk) 08:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Unless we're talking about where UPE is discovered and determined by other means, I don't see how this can go anywhere. Sometimes in NPP I see a case where after a thorough review, I'd say I'm 95% sure it's UPE. Wikipedia has no place to go with this information (e.g. for further review) ....the folks who ostensibly we're to report these to do not consider it to be their purview which is only to review submitted off-wiki evidence. And 95% sure is not enough to anything with. North8000 ( talk) 18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe's feedback is that you don't think this is a viable proposal and won't be unless we spend a considerable amount of time (years?) taking test cases to AfD.
Based on the above discussion, the main concern (aside from those who don't want this criterion at all), appears to be how we will ensure that it is only a. I also think I assumed too much prior knowledge of how UPE enforcement and handling of nonpublic evidence currently works, which will also. To address this, I suggest making deletion explicitly conditional on a prior block for UPE, and inserting some more links for context on how these happen. So this would be the proposed text:
- AXX. Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use
- This applies to promotional articles created by a user who is indefinitely blocked for violating the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use's prohibition of undisclosed paid editing
- This criterion only applies to undisclosed paid editing, not paid editing that has been disclosed or any other types of conflict of interest
- Mere suspicion of undisclosed paid editing is not enough; there must be a consensus documented on-wiki or nonpublic evidence reported through the proper channels (see below), and the user must have been blocked for it
- If the block is based on nonpublic evidence, it must have been placed or endorsed by a functionary or administrator authorised to handle nonpublic evidence for this criterion to apply
- Unlike WP:CSD#G5, this criterion applies to articles created before the block was placed
The insertion of "promotional" is so we don't end up deleting non-paid creations alongside paid ones. I'm not sure if this also needs an explanatory bullet point.
Feedback and suggested modifications welcome, but I'm hopeful we're zeroing in on something that can be put to an RfC soon. – Joe ( talk) 12:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There’s a big premise going on that throwaway accounts can’t be limited.
I support account confirmation requiring verification via a mobile telephone number. Flag accounts to functionaries, where many (>5?) accounts connect to the same number. Require confirmation to participate at AfD. This method of discouraging multiple account works great in Chinese social media. Use a side process for the rare new editor who doesn’t have access to phone, their own, a family member’s, or a friend’s. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Is blanking a problematic userpage an acceptable alternative to speedy deletion? Ae245 ( talk) 10:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I've put together a proposal to revise and extend R3 to better address redirects in languages other than English. Your feedback is welcomed. — Scott • talk 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I can understand why quite a number of those uploading files might want to keep their creative content local by adding the template {{ Keep local}}, but it seems that this template might also be being used by others with respect to content they didn't create. The thing that started me thinking about this is File:The Penguin (TV series) logo.jpg. It's obvously not the original work of the uploader. It was originally uploaded as non-free but subsequently converted to a PD license and moved to Commons based on c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Penguin (TV series) logo.jpg. The uploader then added a {{ Keep local}} template to the file. I know some file uploaders have had some bad experiences with Commons, but it seems a bit odd for someone other than the original copyright holder of the content to be able to request such things. There certainly can be time and effort involved in finding content to upload to Wikipedia for use in various articles, but that doesn't really create a claim of ownership over the content for the uploader. So, it seems odd that acknowledgement of such a claim (at least in my opinion) is being given just to whoever adds "Keep Local" to a file, particularly in the case where the file licensed as PD.
FWIW, I'm not trying to single out one particular file or one particular uploader by linking to the file mentioned above; I'm only using it as one example of what are probably lots of similarly tagged files. It seems that there should be some restrictions placed on the use of this template, including perhaps limiting it to original content uploaded locally to Wikipedia in which the uploader/copyright holder is the making the request. For reference, Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons for which a local copy has been requested to be kept has almost 6000 entries. How many of these really need to be or should be kept local? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
someone "might want to keep their creative content local"does happen, and it happens particularly because of the reasons they gave below. There are uploaders who have had really bad experiences with Commons; they, therefore, want to keep local files of their own work just in case. This seems (again at least to me) to be a valid reason for keeping the local file. I also do get that "keep local" is just a precaution against unnecessary speedy deletion and doesn't mean a file can't ever be deleted. FWIW, I haven't gone through each of the entries in Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons for which a local copy has been requested to be kept. Maybe they're all like the files JPxG is referring to, but there are almost 6000 files in that category. My guess is that a good lot of them probably have been on Commons long enough to no longer justify a local version also being kept. Of course, removing the "keep local" doesn't mean the corresponding Commons file will never end up deleted. If, however, that happens for a really strong-polciy based reason (not some bot error or personal preference reason), it would also seem to imply that the local file should go as well. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
An additional contributor page of the article like talk with statements or discrepancies to be highlighted Green the whole article/s/ word/s or statement/s stating that the edit or statement or article is under review or under verification being acknowledged by Wikipedia to be considered a true statement or its existence and are/is factual or within legal limits and boundaries and will be finalized by team for compliance and confirmation The Summum Bonum ( talk) 12:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The final sentence of R3 currently says It also does not apply to [...] redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that point to a disambiguation page.
.
My first thought was this should be changed to "...a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function" to match the language of G14. However I then realised that I don't think that's quite right either. I think the intent is to exclude
WP:INTDABLINK redirects from being considered implausible. However, it also excludes redirects that contain very obvious typos (e.g.
Bulse (disambiguation) →
Blues (disambiguation)) or other clear errors (e.g.
British Rail Class 9001 (disambiguation) →
Languages of the Congo) which cannot be the intention.
I'm not sure what the best alternative wording is, but something along the lines of "...unless the part before the parentheses contains implausible typos or is implausibly related to the target" (along with incorporating the disambiguation-like language from G14) maybe?
Thryduulf (
talk)
01:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria
Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be
If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page. this header:
view •
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criteria for speedy deletion page. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38,
39,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48,
49,
50,
51,
52,
53,
54,
55,
56,
57,
58,
59,
60,
61,
62,
63,
64,
65,
66,
67,
68,
69,
70,
71,
72,
73,
74,
75,
76,
77,
78,
79,
80,
81,
82,
83,
84,
85,
86,
87,
88Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Imagine that I create User talk:Nyttend/subpage. Assuming that there's no problem with the content I put on the page, it's a perfectly fine page; we wouldn't delete it on G8 merely because User:Nyttend/subpage doesn't exist. Now, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with problematic content, e.g. blatant spam. Someone comes around and deletes it. Should the talk page be deleted (because it's the talk page of a deleted page), or should it remain (because it's a valid subpage in userspace), or is this something we should just leave up to admin judgement?
Also, imagine that I create
User:Nyttend/subpage with the content #REDIRECT
ebwtriypnry0tiw5mr4te5
, or I create the page with valid content and then replace it with the broken redirect. G8 (redirect to nonexistent page), or keep (established user's subpage), or admin judgement?
This just now came to mind as I was deleting spam in userspace; I deleted User talk:BassettHousePic/sandbox after deleting User:BassettHousePic/sandbox, and I'm not sure this is always right. Here it was (the user's been spamblocked and has no other edits), but that won't always be the case, especially if the userpage is deleted via U1. Nyttend ( talk) 23:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
So, this is something I've seen happen in some cases, usually involving inexperienced editors who have just gotten autoconfirmed. First there is the instance I've dealt with, where an article is draftified (when I've done it, it's usually for lacking references) and the author immediately recreates it by either moving it or, more often, by copy-paste. I haven't seen an exact consensus on what to do in this instance. Some have said db-copypaste might apply, but not all admins will delete in this instance. The other options would be re-draftify, PROD, or AfD.
The other instance would be declined or rejected AfC submissions that are moved or copied to mainspace without improvement. My understanding is that declined AfC pages that are resubmitted without improvement are usually summarily declined. If a submission is declined multiple times, that would indicate consensus that the page, in its present state, is unsuitable to be an article, putting it in a similar position to a page that meets G4. TornadoLGS ( talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Currently, if I want to delete
Module:Sandbox/Nickps or one of its subpages, I have to use G7, which means that if another editor edits it, I will have to go to MFD to get it deleted. However, those pages are user sandboxes (see
Module:Module sandbox for the communal sandbox) and are only placed in the Module namespace for technical reasons, so U1 should apply instead. So, I propose that the first sentence of U1 is changed into Personal
user pages,
subpages as well as Module:Sandbox/<the user's name> and its subpages (but not
their corresponding talk pages) upon request by their user.
Nickps (
talk)
23:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit the idea of creating a new speedy deletion for criterion for articles created in violation of the
Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use's prohibition of
undisclosed paid editing
. This was
previously proposed in 2017 but narrowly failed to achieve consensus. However, I think that many of the assumptions made in that discussion are no longer valid in 2024, due to the changing nature of undisclosed paid editing. Specifically, the closer wrote the objection to the proposed criterion was based on the following:
the relative vagueness and/or subjectivity of its definition and/or applicability in practice due to frequency of edge cases– we have become much more organised about handling undisclosed paid editing cases since 2017. There is now an off-wiki reporting mechanism and a group of trusted functionaries actively monitoring it. Blocks for UPE based on nonpublic evidence are documented on-wiki using a process set by ArbCom, similar to checkuser blocks. Adding a clarifying bullet to the new criterion saying that it is only applicable if UPE is demonstrated by solid evidence on-wiki (rare in practice) or endorsed by a functionary should therefore be sufficient to overcome this objection. It wouldn't be any more vague or subjective than G5.
other criteria already cover most cases (e.g., WP:A7, WP:G11)– UPE operations are smarter than they were seven years ago (or if they didn't get smarter, they couldn't survive). They don't write articles that without a claim of significance, they create the appearance of notability by WP:REFBOMBing citations to articles they have paid to be placed in superficially reliable sources. They don't write blatant advertisements, they just only write positive things and neglect to include anything their client doesn't want mentioned. I cannot remember the last time I came across a UPE creation that was so clear-cut as to meet these criteria.
the normal, slower deletion processes are sufficient given a purportedly low incidence of pages that would meet the proposed criteria– the functionaries receive reports of undisclosed paid editing almost daily, and it is not unusual for them to reveal dozens of paid creations. Sending them en masse to AfD would flood it, and discussion there is in any case complicated by the nonpublic nature of the grounds for deletion.
Another approach suggested in the past was to expand G5 to cover these. And it is true that the vast majority of the regular UPErs we see were blocked long ago. But I don't think this is a good approach for two reasons. First, we frequently can't link them to a specific blocked account. Second, the more successful UPErs have moved away from sockfarms and instead hire one-off freelancers to post articles for them. This technically doesn't preclude G5 but does make it a lot less clear cut and in practice I think it has become less and less useful for UPE.
I'm not proposing this criterion right now. I'd like to hear whether others think it is viable and workshop the wording a bit first (so please hold the support/opposes). – Joe ( talk) 08:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
In practice, over my 12 years here, I have seen almost no satisfactory articles from people who are writing an article for money. – Joe ( talk) 10:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
My experience with works accused of being UPE is that very often these accusations are made with little or no visible evidence. Sometimes even when the accuser is directly asked they will refuse to provide any evidence on the basis of not spilling beans. If an editor is actually determined to be a UPE-creator and blocked for it we can apply G5. If it's blatantly promotional we can apply G11. If neither, we need a clear and transparent process, not a hidden and unanswerable tribunal of UPE-inquisitors. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
the more successful UPErs have moved away from sockfarms and instead hire one-off freelancers to post articles for themand the freelancers were never themselves blocked. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deletedcould also be demonstrated by consensus in an RfC, for example. – Joe ( talk) 08:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Unless we're talking about where UPE is discovered and determined by other means, I don't see how this can go anywhere. Sometimes in NPP I see a case where after a thorough review, I'd say I'm 95% sure it's UPE. Wikipedia has no place to go with this information (e.g. for further review) ....the folks who ostensibly we're to report these to do not consider it to be their purview which is only to review submitted off-wiki evidence. And 95% sure is not enough to anything with. North8000 ( talk) 18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe's feedback is that you don't think this is a viable proposal and won't be unless we spend a considerable amount of time (years?) taking test cases to AfD.
Based on the above discussion, the main concern (aside from those who don't want this criterion at all), appears to be how we will ensure that it is only a. I also think I assumed too much prior knowledge of how UPE enforcement and handling of nonpublic evidence currently works, which will also. To address this, I suggest making deletion explicitly conditional on a prior block for UPE, and inserting some more links for context on how these happen. So this would be the proposed text:
- AXX. Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use
- This applies to promotional articles created by a user who is indefinitely blocked for violating the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use's prohibition of undisclosed paid editing
- This criterion only applies to undisclosed paid editing, not paid editing that has been disclosed or any other types of conflict of interest
- Mere suspicion of undisclosed paid editing is not enough; there must be a consensus documented on-wiki or nonpublic evidence reported through the proper channels (see below), and the user must have been blocked for it
- If the block is based on nonpublic evidence, it must have been placed or endorsed by a functionary or administrator authorised to handle nonpublic evidence for this criterion to apply
- Unlike WP:CSD#G5, this criterion applies to articles created before the block was placed
The insertion of "promotional" is so we don't end up deleting non-paid creations alongside paid ones. I'm not sure if this also needs an explanatory bullet point.
Feedback and suggested modifications welcome, but I'm hopeful we're zeroing in on something that can be put to an RfC soon. – Joe ( talk) 12:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There’s a big premise going on that throwaway accounts can’t be limited.
I support account confirmation requiring verification via a mobile telephone number. Flag accounts to functionaries, where many (>5?) accounts connect to the same number. Require confirmation to participate at AfD. This method of discouraging multiple account works great in Chinese social media. Use a side process for the rare new editor who doesn’t have access to phone, their own, a family member’s, or a friend’s. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Is blanking a problematic userpage an acceptable alternative to speedy deletion? Ae245 ( talk) 10:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I've put together a proposal to revise and extend R3 to better address redirects in languages other than English. Your feedback is welcomed. — Scott • talk 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I can understand why quite a number of those uploading files might want to keep their creative content local by adding the template {{ Keep local}}, but it seems that this template might also be being used by others with respect to content they didn't create. The thing that started me thinking about this is File:The Penguin (TV series) logo.jpg. It's obvously not the original work of the uploader. It was originally uploaded as non-free but subsequently converted to a PD license and moved to Commons based on c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Penguin (TV series) logo.jpg. The uploader then added a {{ Keep local}} template to the file. I know some file uploaders have had some bad experiences with Commons, but it seems a bit odd for someone other than the original copyright holder of the content to be able to request such things. There certainly can be time and effort involved in finding content to upload to Wikipedia for use in various articles, but that doesn't really create a claim of ownership over the content for the uploader. So, it seems odd that acknowledgement of such a claim (at least in my opinion) is being given just to whoever adds "Keep Local" to a file, particularly in the case where the file licensed as PD.
FWIW, I'm not trying to single out one particular file or one particular uploader by linking to the file mentioned above; I'm only using it as one example of what are probably lots of similarly tagged files. It seems that there should be some restrictions placed on the use of this template, including perhaps limiting it to original content uploaded locally to Wikipedia in which the uploader/copyright holder is the making the request. For reference, Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons for which a local copy has been requested to be kept has almost 6000 entries. How many of these really need to be or should be kept local? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
someone "might want to keep their creative content local"does happen, and it happens particularly because of the reasons they gave below. There are uploaders who have had really bad experiences with Commons; they, therefore, want to keep local files of their own work just in case. This seems (again at least to me) to be a valid reason for keeping the local file. I also do get that "keep local" is just a precaution against unnecessary speedy deletion and doesn't mean a file can't ever be deleted. FWIW, I haven't gone through each of the entries in Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons for which a local copy has been requested to be kept. Maybe they're all like the files JPxG is referring to, but there are almost 6000 files in that category. My guess is that a good lot of them probably have been on Commons long enough to no longer justify a local version also being kept. Of course, removing the "keep local" doesn't mean the corresponding Commons file will never end up deleted. If, however, that happens for a really strong-polciy based reason (not some bot error or personal preference reason), it would also seem to imply that the local file should go as well. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
An additional contributor page of the article like talk with statements or discrepancies to be highlighted Green the whole article/s/ word/s or statement/s stating that the edit or statement or article is under review or under verification being acknowledged by Wikipedia to be considered a true statement or its existence and are/is factual or within legal limits and boundaries and will be finalized by team for compliance and confirmation The Summum Bonum ( talk) 12:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The final sentence of R3 currently says It also does not apply to [...] redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that point to a disambiguation page.
.
My first thought was this should be changed to "...a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function" to match the language of G14. However I then realised that I don't think that's quite right either. I think the intent is to exclude
WP:INTDABLINK redirects from being considered implausible. However, it also excludes redirects that contain very obvious typos (e.g.
Bulse (disambiguation) →
Blues (disambiguation)) or other clear errors (e.g.
British Rail Class 9001 (disambiguation) →
Languages of the Congo) which cannot be the intention.
I'm not sure what the best alternative wording is, but something along the lines of "...unless the part before the parentheses contains implausible typos or is implausibly related to the target" (along with incorporating the disambiguation-like language from G14) maybe?
Thryduulf (
talk)
01:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)