Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria Shortcut WP:NEWCSD 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 Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific. Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully. Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep. Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise. If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page. this header: view • edit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:CSD

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 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.

There is consensus for option 2 or option 3. I think it might be a good idea to clarify whether GS/CT restrictions fall under G5 or if a new criteria G15 should be created. I think either is okay, as long as it gets mentioned somewhere on the page. Awesome Aasim 21:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we must authorise speedy deletion as a GS/CT remedy (and I continue to believe it is a bad idea to do so) then the very first step is to set out a wording that meets all of the WP:NEWCSD requirements (which isn't going to be easy). Once we have that we can see how similar it is to G5 and thus whether it works best as part of that criterion or as its own standalone one. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a bad idea. Delegated speedy deletion being further delegated, makes a mockery of the leading line of CSD, and dangerously elevates ArbCom as a governing power, free to delegate their power. This is a bad pathway.

Better to block any editor who breaks their partial ban, and leave it to their unblock request to make the case that it was not a partial ban violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody actually interested in this? As it stands we have a consensus that these deletions should be allowed, but the relevant policy still prohibits them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any objections (specific ones, and consistent with the RFC close) to the pre-RFC version? —Cryptic 23:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails NEWCSD point 2, because deletion speedy deletion is not required for the majority of such pages - especially ones created in good faith. G5 (which is already too vague) is intended to allow for the deletion of content created by editors who have been repeatedly disruptive and who are fully aware that they are being disruptive and why it is considered disruptive, not for allowing easier biting of newbies who happen to start on a contentious topic . Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So no objections consistent with the close? I mean, you don't get to stonewall this against the consensus above on NEWCSD2 grounds any more than I do the R5 proposal below on NEWCSD3 and 4 ones. Best either of us can do is to stand aside, document how very wrongly things turn out, and - if our fears are proven justified - attempt to convince people to repeal once we've got stronger evidence to point at. —Cryptic 03:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My objections are consistent with the close, and I'm not attempting to stonewall. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That version looks fine to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would replace "general sanctions" with "in violation of general sanctions" with "in violation of a topic-wide extended confirmed restriction", to be less ambiguous. Although on second thought that link points to ArbCom procedures and thereby misses the community RUSUKR restrictions, which should probably be fixed. Until that happens I guess I'm fine with the pre-RFC version. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with "in violation of an extended-confirmed restriction" without a link to WP:ECR. I'm not aware of any non-ECR general sanctions that would apply here. It's possible that the community or ArbCom would authorize some other topic-wide creation restriction, so maybe "general sanctions" is more future-proof? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the broader "general sanctions" so that it's more future-proof but I'd also be fine with an unlinked "extended-confirmed restriction". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By “future-proof”, do you mean “lax”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean future-proof in that we won't need to go through this process again if the community comes up with another page or topic-level sanction that prevents a group of edits from creating pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that happens then it should be trivial at the time to get consensus about whether this should be enforceable by speedy deletion, and if so what the NEWCSD-compatible wording implementing that is. Unless and until that happens, it's just less precise language that increases the risk of problems down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all seem a little stuck, so let me throw something out to get discussion started.

A12. Author violating arbitration committee extended confirmed restriction

Topics under a contentious topic extended confirmed restriction may not be created in mainspace by editors who do not possess the extended confirmed permission.

I purposely changed it from G to A to exempt user sandboxes, as that was mentioned as a concern somewhere, although I'd be fine with changing it back. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is that we try incorporate it into G5 but I don't have an issue with a new criteria. I think it does need to be G rather than A as it would also apply to drafts, talk pages, Wikipedia pages and so on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ECR does not logically fit under G5, and abandoning logic necessarily means abandoning “objective” and screws up the foundational basis of CSD.

Support “A” because it only needs to apply to mainspace. It should not apply to drafts or userspace. ECR accounts putting stuff in talk or project namespaces should be dealt with as with any WP:GAMING. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like something that should be brought up as an amendment request (for the ArbCom-imposed ones) and WP:VPR (for the community imposed one). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom should not be overriding policy. WP:CSD should be a standalone policy. If ArbCom want ECR violations to be speediable, as opposed to a deletion reason, and for this to be applicable to all namespaces, not just mainspace, then they should be clear about this, and it needs ratification here at CSD. WP:CSD should not be asked to contract out WP:CSD-writing to ArbCom.

It is not clear that ARbCom insists that ECR violations in userspace should be speediable. If userspace ECR violations are not speediable, then it is not clear that weird namespace creations, such as in project or project_talk namespaces, or worse, should not be treated as a mistake and speedy-userfied (without trailing redirect). The rationale here is merely that the newcomer should not be bitten. Arcane rules should not justify beating and confusing the newcomer. If you speedy delete their userpsubpage or draftpage, how are they meant to hope that they will understand exactly what they did wrong. These are my concerns. Newcomer biting, as well as subverting CSD by addition of large door and subjective new criteria.

I think User:Novem_Linguae's A12 is obviously agreeable, and the first question is: Does anyone disagree. The second question is: Can you please justify why it needs to be broader (eg why not allow MfD deletions in userspace, and speedy-userfication from other namespaces. Already, the one case at MfD did not result in deletion!).

-- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good to me. I would suggest removing "arbitration committee" and "contentious topic", and I think we shouldn't link WP:ECR. The community has also established extended confirmed restrictions that authorize deletion, and the restrictions do not follow the exact text at WP:ECR. See for example WP:GS/AA or WP:GS/RUSUKR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

G15: Pages created in violation of a contentious topic restriction or other general sanction

Pages that are created by users in violation of an arbitration- or community-authorized contentious topic restriction or other topic-specific general sanction, with no significant edits from others. This does not apply if the user is explicitly banned from the topic area (see WP:CSD#G5), nor does it apply if a user not subject to the restriction takes responsibility for the content.

And then we can have WP:RFUD for an appropriate user to take responsibility for such content, and WP:DRV if the creator believes the deletion was done out of process. Awesome Aasim 21:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad. Hopelessly subjective. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see how this is subjective. Either the page was created and edited in violation of a general sanction, or it was not. Just like either the page was created as ban evasion, or it was not. Awesome Aasim 17:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subjective part I think is that not everything that could be deleted under this criterion should be deleted. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 21:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument can be said about G5. An article can be of exceptional quality but written by a banned editor in that topic area. The point of bans and topic restrictions is that allowing specific users or groups of users in specific topic areas pose a serious risk of disruption for any number of reasons, that we shouldn't allow them to edit there at all. Not that there will sometimes be good content that is deleted for that reason. Awesome Aasim 22:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument can be said about G5 indeed, which is why G5 would not be approved if proposed today, and why it is one of the most controversial criteria. Whenever we delete good content just because of who wrote it we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. Good content should be kept and bad content should be deleted, in all cases who the author is is irrelevant. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 23:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC) Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 23:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 began objective. It used to read simply:

Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned.

Scope creep is a problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed scope creep is a problem.

In my humble opinion, I would have G5 and the proposed G15 deletions undeletable at WP:RFUD by someone who is not subject to the ban/block or topic restriction. Instruction creep is really the enemy that we should fight here. Awesome Aasim 02:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then what is needed is simply (sticky) PROD, which can only be removed by an extended confirmed editor taking responsibility for it. This guarantees at least two pairs of eyes and gives people a week to find the content. If it is too problematic to remain for a week then it should meet at least one existing speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky PROD sounds like a much better response to the subjective violation of a subjective partial topic ban pronouncement by ArbCom, and especially where it has spilled over to classes of editors, not specifically named users.

Speedy deletion, with a log reference to a peculiar technical requirement, is confusing and chilling to newcomers attempting to contribute to an important topic.

Where good faith can’t be assumed and disruption is at play, it’s a behavioural problem, and behaviours should be responded to by warnings and blocks, not content deletion.

This especially applies to content creation in userspace and draftspace, where there is no urgency to product the product (WP:PPP). SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if something is created in mainspace then existing processes such as draftifcation, userfication, and AfD exist to deal with content that is actually (rather than just procedurally) unfit to be public-facing without needing deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are speedy templates that operate a bit like PROD: namely, a lot of the {{di}} templates, as well as WP:C1. I fail to see how this is any different. Awesome Aasim 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With a PROD anyone can remove for any reason at any time, because it's just one person's opinion that deletion is uncontroversial. With sticky-PROD anyone can remove at any time if they've taken specific actions (e.g. added references to a BLP), because it's one person's opinion that it's not possible to do that action. With speedy deletion, the bar to removal is higher as you have to assert that the page does not meet the criterion for some reason, because to be a valid speedy deletion criterion it must be community consensus that everything that meets the criterion should be deleted. WP:C1 is proper speedy deletion as community consensus is that categories that have been empty for 7 days should be deleted. Most of the {{di}} ones are a mix of proper speedy deletion (but with a delay because it can take time to verify that the files do meet the criterion) and PRODs in disguise.

Either a page was created by a non-ECR editor or it wasn't, we don't need time to verify that, and waiting any amount of time doesn't change that. However, we do need to give time for other editors to verify that the content should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can enforce the ECR restriction in different ways, like edit filters.

We can have a speedy criteria in case anything slips past, but we can tag if the article appears to contain keywords hinting at an ECR topic, maybe also warn the user in the edit box. Awesome Aasim 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, what exactly is the problem here? There's a consensus from the RfC that either G5 applies, or a new Gx should be created. Modifying G5 is simple, just add the text from Awesome Aasim's G15 suggestion as a bullet point and it's done. It's literally the easiest option, and doesn't even require changes to tools like Twinkle. Or create the G15 suggestion from Awesome Aasim and again, we're done.

As someone who's completely uninvolved in the RfC and post-discussion until now, I'm sorely tempted to just make one of these edits myself, probably the G5 modification, because it shouldn't be this hard to just implement. It's been 8 days since the last comment. Can we please see some action here, or am I just going to do this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you are not understanding about the comments and objections noted above? (this is not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely not understanding what is unclear to you). I'm disappointed the (sticky) PROD suggestion has not received more input, given that it seems achieve the outcome those supporting the expansion of the speedy deletion criteria want while avoiding (at least most of) the incompatibilities with the requirements for speedy deletion criteria noted. The reason it's proving harder to implement than a surface reading suggests it should is because when you look at the detail you find that converting a vague aspiration into something that meets the NEWCSD requirements is actually hard. If you want to ignore those requirements and just implement the subjective, overly broad criterion proposed then you might be able to get consensus to do that (although I personally hope you don't, as the requirements exist for good reason), but that consensus doesn't exist yet. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, there's a consensus from the RfC that either G5 applies, or a new Gx should be created. Either option appears to fulfil NEWCSD. Pick one of those two, and do it. If there's no action on this by tomorrow, I'm just going to pick the easiest option to implement myself (G5) and do it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either option appears to fulfil NEWCSD the outcome of the first RFD was "create or modify a criterion to allow this", which is neither compatible nor incompatible with NEWCSD (it's not a proposal). For the reasons explained above multiple times, the specifically proposed wordings do not: they're subjective and overly broad. I explicitly and actively oppose adding this to G5 as that just makes one of the most controversial criteria more complicated and even less objective. G15 is a little better as it doesn't muddy multiple only semi-related things in together, but it doesn't solve the overreach problem. The A12 proposal is the least problematic - there is no consensus whether drafts and talk pages should be deleted so they need to be excluded from any speedy deletion criterion compliant with speedy deletion policy, but (like the other suggestions too) it hasn't attracted enough comment to determine whether it has consensus or not.

What needs to happen is either more discussion until we arrive at a consensus for something that is compatible with policy, a consensus to ignore the policy, or no change through lack of interest in achieving consensus. What we really do not need is reckless changes to policy in the absence of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an explainer for how either criteria meets NEWCSD:

1. Objective: A user either is or is not extended confirmed. Whether an article does or does not meet ARPBIA4, GS/AA, or GS/KURD is an objective assessment that any editor in good standing can make.
2. Uncontestable: WP:ARBECR#A2 states that non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles in content areas covered by this sanction. ARBECR#A1 states that non-extendend-confirmed editors may only use the Talk namespace to make edit requests, and canno
3. Frequent: We have non-extended-confirmed editors creating articles in content areas covered by ARBPIA4, GS/AA, and GS/KURD. Per ARBECR and the copied versions in GS/* non-extended-confirmed editors are not allowed to create these articles. This speeds up deletion of articles created in violation of that sanction.
4. Nonredundant: There are no other CSD that currently apply for enforcement of ARBECR.

This is quite clearly an objective criteria, either a user is or is not extended confirmed, and an article either is or is not in one of the relevant sanction areas. I'm don't really want to be dragged into a state where I become INVOLVED in this, because this really should have been implemented already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on en.wikipedia are supposed to be limited to those with an WP:ENGLISHTITLE, yet there's at least one editor adding many disambiguation pages to the project, with Chinese page titles. They can be seen here. From a quick look, all of the articles being "disambiguated" are all English-titled articles. I don't see a need for the disambiguation pages, or why they'd be a special case that is exempt from ENGLISHTITLE. Would it be in order to use CSD G14 for these? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking I do not think they meet G14 as they do appear to disambiguate at least two pages. Taking one page arbitrarily as an example, I think the solution here might be to redirect/merge 怪談 to its English counterpart Kaidan (disambiguation); that way those searching for the Chinese term will still be able to search for their expected result, but get an answer that's actually in English. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not speedily deletable, and probably shouldn't be deleted at all in many (maybe most) cases. Per WP:RFOREIGN where there is a close connection between the subject and another language, then a redirect from the title in that language is appropriate. If that title is ambiguous, then obviously it should be disambiguated. Whether to disambiguate at the foreign-language title or redirect to a disambiguation page at an English title will depend on the individual circumstances, but in neither case should the non-English title be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, see the discussion that I initiated a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55#Spell out the treatment of titles with non-Latin characters, where I argued that it makes sense to extend to such disambiguation pages the principles that are set forth for redirects at WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that discussion, but I see I made essentially the same argument for the same reasons in my comment above (WP:RFOREIGN and WP:FORRED have the same target). Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you move the pages if you move them somewhere else? I only bothered checking the first four pages (一 (disambiguation), 一生, 一生一世, 一輝) where the only thing which unites the targets is the way they are written using Chinese characters. There is no common version using Roman letters.

We normally redirect place names and person names from the original language in the script. Check 大阪, 北京, Москва, for example. If the original name in the original name is ambiguous, you typically create an ambiguation page if there would otherwise be too many hatnotes. I don't see why place names in the original language in the original script, such as 東京, should receive different treatment. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:ENGLISHTITLE applies only to the title used at an actual article. Redirects in other scripts, and disambiguation pages when those redirects are ambiguous, are non-problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:DABTITLE to consider - "English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages" - but "preferred" isn't "mandated"; and if "the English title isn't ambiguous, but the foreign title is" isn't reason to ignore that, I don't know what possibly could be. (Also, there's recent precedent at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 12#樂天, and less-recent precedent linked from that.) —Cryptic 12:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

For a while now WP:RFD has been flooded with nominations for redirects that a missing a space between the term and the opening parenthesis of a disambiguator (e.g. Constantine(video game) and Scaramouche(1952 film)), see for example sections 17 to 35 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 31, sections 17 to 57 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1, and similar in the days leading up to them. These discussions invariably end up being deleted uncontroversially, and the number of discussions is causing issues for RfD (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Can we reduce the number of RfDs transcluded on this page?). Accordingly I propose a new speedy deletion criterion R5:
Redirects with no space before a parenthetical term, e.g. "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, e.g. 501(c)(3)

• Before nominating a redirect under this criterion:
  • Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
  • Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version.
• This criterion does not apply if the redirect is the result of page move made less than 30 days ago, but criteria R3 and/or G6 may apply.

The rationale for the last bullet is to allow time for mirrors, etc. to catch up. If the page was moved and then immediately moved again, or created at this title then quickly moved then this title was obviously created in error and G6 applies. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support this. As you said, it's been an ongoing issue and the discussions end the same way every time. It's adding unnecessary bureaucracy when the outcome is clear from the beginning. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – these are among the most straightforward closes I regularly encounter at RfD, and they aren't adequately covered by R3 and G6. ^Complex/_Rational 13:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would also support coverage of other obvious typographical errors, such as disambiguators missing a closing paren. BD2412 T 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The most recent large discussion I found about missing closing parentheses was very controversial as they were working around an external link problem. I can't remember what the outcome was in the end but it was relisted a couple of times, so not at all suitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've started trying to track past nominations such as these and I have 3 bulk nomination links saved in my notes for these types of redirects. They're for February, 2019, April, 2019, and October, 2022, the most recent of which was contentious. I'm sure you already know Thryduulf, but I thought I'd share the links for reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I would title it "Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguator" to define the scope. If not then things like 501(c)(3) absolutely will be carelessly tagged and deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good suggestion. I think that's a good differentiation to make. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why aren't these R3's? Is it just that we're only now working through a backlog of very old ones that nobody noticed before? What happens when those are gone? And would a database report to detect new ones help? —Cryptic 17:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of the ones that have been nominated recently have been around for over a decade. I guess a database report wouldn't harm. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Very preliminary version at quarry:query/80153. Very many false positives still, chemical names in particular, and it's not immediately obvious how to filter them out without introducing false negatives. I'd hope that most wouldn't be interpreted as a disambiguator, but I'm sure someone would eventually carelessly speedy ones like Chromium(III), and I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find ones of the much-more-common sort like Dysprosium(III) nitride tagged db-r5 either.

  What I'm not seeing are recently-created ones. The current most recent is Deportivo Toluca F.C.(women) from January 13, and the next most recent is Fletcher Ladd(justice) from December 14. Unless RFD has been very diligent about deleting recently-created ones in particular recently - has it? - this suggests to me a backlog we can hope to eventually clear rather than an ongoing and permanent problem. —Cryptic 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I tweaked your query to just filter out the articles, which got the total down to 12.2k. If it helps, Dcirovic seems to have created 900+ of the redirects that appear in the query. I expect that they're legit ones which could be removed. I also noticed that your list is including redirects that contain "-(", which could be something to look at to trim it a bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Filtering out non-redirects is good if you're looking for more to bring to RFD, or potentially speedy. It's not so good in the context of this discussion (since it also filters out redirects currently at RFD, since they're not technically redirects while tagged) or in an ongoing database report (we'd want to see pages created at or moved to titles like these as soon as they happen, not just after someone else happens to notice them, moves them back, and doesn't deal with the redirect).

  You can reasonably go further than just eliminating -( by looking specifically for a letter- or digit-like character before the paren, as in quarry:query/80157. Again, if I were watching a date-ordered report, I'd rather see them show up than risk missing a false negative - it misses Deportivo Toluca F.C.(women) from above, for example. —Cryptic 20:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even just removing '-(' is going to filter out redirects we should deal with, like Hurdling-(horse race). —Cryptic 21:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know the flavor of SQL being used here and I don't have Quarry access but could it stand to have something along the lines of AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 'X' FROM page otherpage WHERE otherpage.page_title = REPLACE(page.page_title, '(', ' (')? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WMF-run wikis are backed by MariaDB, a MySQL fork. You (and anyone else with a registered account) do have Quarry access, if you care; click "Login" from the upper right and it'll bounce you through meta. And, again, that sort of refinement is going to result in many false negatives - this time, it'll find pages that haven't been partially dealt with (by someone creating the properly-disambiguated title), but miss cases where someone saw a page at Acme(widget manufacturer) and moved it to Acme (widget manufacturer) without dealing with the leftover redirect. —Cryptic 20:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That right there is one of the largest groups of false positives I've found: Valid chemistry-related titles with parentheses without spacing before/after parentheses. Thus .. my reservations about making this a CSD. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (For what it's worth, here's the regex query I've developed over time that reduces the amount of chemistry-related false positives: [^ 0-9:\-\)]\([^0-9\-\)][^\)]. (Search using this regex [takes a bit to load]) However, it also doesn't allow any numbers directly after a "(" which will make "bad" disambiguators that start with years not appear in the list either.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Well, I just tried my own regex a few times, and even that list on 20 titles has like 2–3 false positives. Over the years, trying to write the perfect regex to reduce false positives has been rather difficult.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steel1943 What we could do is tag chemistry redirects with a proper redirect category and then exclude the redirect template or category from the query. This way future editors will also know that these aren't fit for speedy deletions. Gonnym (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it seems to pass most of the NEWCSD requirements, objective, as noted all discussions seem to today result in deletion with most people agreeing, uncontestable, there is a clear consensus today to delete these, frequent, although it may become less frequent if newer ones are caught and deleted under R3 other namespaces and if future ones get missed (and some in other namespaces not yet checked as all from what I can remember have been namespace redirects but there will probably be such redirects in other namespaces) will be needed, nonredundant, as noted while many newer ones can be deleted under R3 older ones can't and although it could already be argued these can be deleted under G6 it would probably be more sensible for the same reason G14 was split to have a separate criteria. In terms of consensus etc in previous years such redirects were kept often per WP:CHEAP, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 26#Burn (Scotland but in more recent years such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Redirects with disambiguators missing ")" the consensus has changed namely that such redirects are WP:COSTLY. I would put one condition here, that the redirect doesn't have any article content history currently at the title (as opposed to from a move) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 30#Montblanc(ffta) for example was an article so as a sub topic the history should probably be moved to Montblanc (ffta) (and the resulting redirect could then be deleted under R5) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29#Musa(name) which has significant history. When it comes to such redirects they should in some cases be moved to the correct title, in some cases should be restored and sent to AFD and in some cases are simply duplicates which means that if they only contain nonsense etc or don't contain any significant content not in the target they don't need to be kept and could have been deleted as A10 if they hadn't been redirected.
• I also think we should cover "(Disambiguation)" redirects like London (Disambiguation) per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. I would also support incorrectly capitalized qualifiers like Morbius (Film), see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 13#Morbius (Film) but the consensus seems to be weaker. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Excluding redirects that have history as an article would seem best as there aren't so many of them that RfD would be overwhelmed and the best course of action is not always the same. As for "improperly" capitalised disambiguators, the consensus that these are bad is weak and (from my biased perspective) getting weaker so they definitely shouldn't be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm surprised those capitalizations were deleted. I don't personally support that as alternative capitalizations are typically valid redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think capitalization redirects with incorrect qualifiers are useful as users are very unlikely to use incorrect Wikipedia qualifiers, see WP:UNNATURAL and for internal searchers they would get to the correct place anyway. These redirects do inconvenience editors though.

  @Thryduulf: Would something like This criteria does not apply to any redirect that has non-redirect content (such as being a separate article or template etc) at the current title's history unless the page would qualify for speedy deletion (such as A10 or G1) if restored. If the page was redirected more than a month ago then the page can be moved to the correct title without redirect or the resulting redirect deleted immediately under this criteria. This would clarify that redirects like Montblanc(ffta) could not be deleted by this criteria but because it was redirected ages ago it could be moved to Montblanc (ffta) without redirect or the redirect speedily deleted. While I don't really agree with you that article content can't be deleted at RFD I don't think article content should be speedily deleted under R5. And cases like say Musa(name) that have history that can't easily be moved would still go to RFD but as you say there aren't many of these case so shouldn't be a problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I agree with the concept in your second paragraph, but the wording isn't the clearest (I had to read it multiple times to be clear about what you mean). I've not got time right now to improve it though. Your first paragraph is almost completely backwards - they do help and don't hinder - (UNNATURAL is a mix of correct, debatable and incorrect) but as this is something good faith editors disagree about it fails the uncontroversial requirement for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am wondering if this would make more sense as X3. Recently created redirects which match the description of the proposed R5 fall under R3; once the "backlog" has been cleared this would seem redundant (NEWCSD#4). I think RfD can handle the occasional term(dab) that makes it past NPR without getting nominated for R3. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 08:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support X3 and oppose R5. Once the backlog is cleared, it will be redundant (i.e. fail WP:NEWCSD4) to R3; RfD will be able to handle the occasional redirect that makes it through the R3 window. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my previous discussion with Thryduulf. As I noted there, RfD has continued to be inundated with RDAB redirects, so I do think a CSD criterion is warranted. I would also support expanding the scope to cover the other types of errors mentioned at RDAB (I can live with capitalization differences being exempted, if others agree with Thryduulf that they are not uncontroversial), including (disambiguation, ((disambiguation), (disambiguation) (disambiguation), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Missing closing parentheses were controversial last time they were discussed en mass so are not suitable for speedy deletion. I don't recall seeing any of the others at RfD recently. Ø (Disambiguation) (disambiguation) is the only page I can find "(disambiguation) (disambiguation)", and that's a {{R from merge}} so likely needs to be kept. As of the 21 November dump of page titles (the most recent I have downloaded) there were no instances of "((disambiguation" or "disambiguation))". Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Andrew Sinclair (privy councellor and etc., Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Bonaparte's Retreat (Disambiguation), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Islamic Resistance in Iraq (Disambiguation ), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Terminal value (philosophy/, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Chen Mingyi (Taiwan）, etc. You can easily find more cases of RDAB via regex search, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose while I like the idea; I don't think this will reduce the load on RfD. Maybe what is needed is a proposed deletion process. I think we can expand WP:PROD to include redirects. Awesome Aasim 19:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please also see User_talk:176.33.241.125#Can you group all your misspaced parentheses RfDs into one nomination? where I give a kind request for all the similar redirects to be in one nomination to make discussion easier to follow. Awesome Aasim 19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  From memory, a PROD for redirects has been rejected previously and I oppose it now. PROD only works for pages that are reasonably well watched, but very few redirects are watched other than by their creators (and not even always then) so PRODed redirects are unlikely to be seen. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think extending the PROD duration and maybe having a bot update the list of PRODded redirects periodically would solve this problem? Awesome Aasim 17:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also I disagree that PROD won't work for pages not well watched; we have maintenance categories where people can review PRODs and reject them if they disagree. Awesome Aasim 18:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  PROD only works for pages that are reasonably well watched: it was my impression that PROD is used largely by new page patrol, so that wouldn't be the case. No? Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think PROD should be available to all types of pages but that's a different discussion. In any case these redirects shouldn't be left to clutter the search etc for 7 days. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. These RfD end the same and are basically just a waste of editorial time and take time away from the other nominations. Gonnym (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Utopes just sent another batch of redirects to RfD today, so pinging them here. Also pinging @Steel1943, who previously nominated several RDAB redirects, and notifying 176.33.241.125 on their talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the tip! I didn't even realize this was a discussion taking place when I sent those, will leave a comment now. 👍 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I'm concerned drive-by admins will delete redirects that look like disambiguation issues when the title is actually valid (false positives). Examples: BSc(Hons) (currently nominated at RFD) and JANET(UK) (apparently, a valid alternative/former name for its target [see its edit history for my back-and-forth edits on this].) Yeah, given my level of participation in these redirects, one would think I would be supporting this ... but not so much since I'm concerned administrators may not get it right the first time when enforcing such a speedy deletion criterion, which has a potential to cause harm to the encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Create a temporary criterion "X3" until the numbers get low enough to where it can be reasonably appealed. Thinking about this, turns out I'm okay if this is the chosen path, given that I think "X" criteria tend to make admins do a double take and research the redirect's history prior to deleting the redirect. Seems like such a situation could appease all parties. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've stuffed the (full, unfiltered) results into subpages of User:Cryptic/Improper disambiguation redirects, and am going to spend a few hours classifying them - maybe all of them, but at least the first subpage which has the thousand most recent. Yes, even the relatively-easy-to-detect chemical ones. A problematic case with two examples has already jumped out at me (maybe the same sort as Steel1943's above, I haven't looked at them) - CPUSA(PW)/CPUSA(P) and PCd'I(ml). Would the advocates of this criterion speedy those? And if not, how are they excluded by this wording? —Cryptic 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first two should be excluded as they "will [be] correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces" - determined by them being listed in bold in the target article without spaces. PCd'I(ml) does not appear to be correct - the article uses the acronym spaced and every unspaced google hit seems to relate to this redirect, so would be correctly speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No confidence that some heathen who thinks there should be a space before the param list of function prototypes won't use this as an excuse to speedy int main(void). —Cryptic 21:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if I create the list, and improper disambiguation does not affect some titles like 501(c)(3) and chemical names like Cadmium(I). 176.33.241.125 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Such redirects are almost invariably getting deleted at RfD – I haven't found a single nomination in the last 30 days that closed as anything other than "delete", though BSc(Hons) seems headed to "keep". – This proposal will probably reduce the backlog and editor workload considerably. My only issues are the potential misuse/careless use of the criterion, hence why I would additionally support a listing of major exceptions (chemical names come to my mind but there are others). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, but would love to support a criteria that can be used to clean these. From what I've seen, while these titles might look the same, the backgrounds for all can be vastly different. As an example based on my personal experiences, I set out to find the total number of film redirects that were exactly: Foo(film). There were 172 of these, yet their histories were always varied. (I found it useful to display these titles in a Massviews chart). There are some pages that were recently created, and could qualify for R3 (although not usually). Sometimes, these were intentionally created with the lack-of-space, but most of the time these titles came about as left-behind from moves. Sometimes these were created at a bad title with extensive histories before being BLAR'd into the version that already exists, or may contain convoluted reversions between two titles that only differ in their spacing. In some of these cases though, G6 is likely to apply under the stipulation that they're "redirect(s) left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title." (which directly comes from Template:Db-error). The reason I'm neutral is because while I agree that these titles should be ridden of, I don't know if there is a clear-cut description would lead to deletion at this stage, more than what we already have described in G6 and R3. I agree something needs to be done, but investigating the histories seems to be an absolute requirement here, which cancels out a lot of these situations I'd think. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As a question to this, would Shock(film) be eligible for CSD under this criteria, with its history? What about Rockers(film), which survived RfD? Brij Bhoomi(film) has 173 pageviews this month (due to its multiple incoming links), but would it also be CSD-able under this criteria despite it getting 17 views a day? At RfD I'd !vote to delete all of these for sure, but what I don't know is whether CSD makes the deletions too hasty, and whether there is value in investigating their histories and circumstances for existence. These are just the (film) redirects, and I don't know how complicated the other titles could be. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Utopes: "...there is value in investigating [the redirects'] histories and circumstances for existence..." There always is, which is one of the reasons I cannot sway my opinion one way or another to codify these redirects as eligible for CSD. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As more and more examples get brought up, I'm becoming less and less certain that speedy deletion beyond R3 and G6 is possible in a way that is not too narrow to be useful and not too broad so as to catch things that shouldn't be deleted. I need to think more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)I agree with that, yes. This is my concern as well. When looking through these titles, the backgrounds can be vastly different. When putting the Foo(film) RfD together, I was skipping over pages in history, because those would need to be checked on a case-by-case basis, presumably. It was unclear to me whether this new CSD criteria puts weight into histories, and if so, by how much? If we take away the pages with history, we're left with a decently smaller number of applicable pages, and the question becomes whether a whole criterion is necessary for the [X] number of cases that are safe to outright delete. I don't know how much that number is. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess my follow-up would be to find a comparison. How are histories dealt with other R CSD criteria? I feel like I've seen situations where a page (and its history) are replaced with a redirect (I think it was to Draftspace, but I can't recall), which was then tagged as R2'd by someone who followed up with the page. How "valuable" is the page history there? I'd presume it's checked every time, so doing it here might not be that unconventional. The question becomes what constitutes a "valuable history" that makes CSD a safe action for redirects that meet R5. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be checked every time, as with all other speedy criteria. I have no confidence that it is. —Cryptic 02:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So, I've finished sorting the most recent 2000 and least-recent 1100ish page titles containing an open-paren not preceded by a space at User:Cryptic/Improper disambiguation redirects (I was never going to get through all of them, and had only been fooled into thinking I could because SDZeroBot initially only gave me about a third of the results). The conclusions I'm drawing from that are:
  • We should make it explicit that this only applies to disambiguators per se, not parenthesized text that's part of the redirect subject's proper name, even if it's misspaced or misspelled. (This sounds obvious to me when it's put like that, but nobody's brought it up as the general case, even though more specific subcases like chemicals and section names have been.) So It's On(Dr.Dre)187um Killa and INS Talwar(F40) and Cheeses...(of Nazereth) wouldn't be speedyable, but restatements of the proper name or redundant parenthesized names like in King Edward Medical university(KEMU) and SsangYong Rodius(Stavic) could be. "Plausibly be searched for without spaces" is too vague, fails NEWCSD#1, and will be abused.
  • Section names like 501(c)(3) aren't common. Chemical names and processes are very, very common, and I didn't notice any incorrectly-formed disambiguators in chemistry-related redirects. If we're mentioning broad classes of counterexamples, that should be the first. I further think we should specifically exclude the entire subject area even if the disambiguator of a chemistry-related redirect is ill-formed and it would otherwise qualify.
  • These aren't frequent. There are a lot of extant cases, but we only see a handful of new ones a month. This seems to be a recurring theme at RFD - someone finds some broad new class of malformed redirects that have been accumulating since 2001, starts nominating them at RFD - sometimes properly in batches, sometimes individually! - and then it finds its way here, even though new ones aren't being rapidly created, and those that are fall under existing criteria.
  I've commented multiple times above, so I'll bold a position here: I oppose this as a permanent criterion, for being infrequent, redundant to R3, and error-prone; I'm neutral on a temporary X- series criterion until the old ones are dealt with. —Cryptic 03:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't delete anything under R3 unless it was created recently. It would make more sense to expand the scope of WP:G14, which already includes (disambiguation) redirects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yes, R3 is recent only. Quite obviously. As I mentioned above. But there's a finite, relatively small, number of non-recent ones: roughly 5000, based on the sample I analyzed, and that's assuming a vanishingly-small number of redirects with non-redirect history (which I didn't check for). As soon as they're gone - and that'll happen quickly, the admins vying for topspot at the awful WP:ADMINSTATS scoreboard query for speedy candidates like these and feed them into Twinkle - it'll be entirely redundant. —Cryptic 03:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  admins vying for topspot at the awful WP:ADMINSTATS scoreboard - surely not: the top admin there is behind the second-top admin by 400,000 deletions and so 5000 entries would be trivial. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't realized about these all time lists. It's just as I've always suspected, there's just no keeping up with Explicit. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a useful tool. Even if the current situation looks temporary, forcing repeated discussions isn't a good use of anyone's time. Also, there's no way of knowing it won't flare up again at some point, since redirects aren't necessarily closely watched and these sorts of mistakes can steadily build up unnoticed; hell, this discussion is going on now because it already happened once. I don't buy the arguments that admins should be assumed to be total rubes, it doesn't actually take a PhD to recognize scientific nomenclatures and other idiosyncratic spellings aren't the same as Wikipedia disambiguators. If there's that much concern, just create a Category:Redirects with unspaced parentheticals or something similar; don't force people to murder untold numbers of characters and minutes of their lives they're not getting back. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Thryduulf:, what I think could be helpful would be if we can identify which / how many of these qualify for G6 or R3 already, and use those existing criteria where appropriate. Once all of the G6/R3 candidates are addressed, maybe we can take a look at what remains, and the commonalities between them? If I had to guess, maybe 50% of these were unambiguously created in error and currently actionable?{{cn}} which might allow us to compartmentalize this block bit by bit. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose these redirects are entirely harmless. We may as well have them since they likely bring a small net benefit to the encyclopedia. The do no damage. Readers don't know our guidelines on how to format the disambiguator, and readers are our priority, not top-down decisions based on overly-finicky guidelines.🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Would they qualify under WP:G6? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The very fact that this is controversial indicates it isn't a G6. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The ones that were very obviously created by or when fixing a mistake (most commonly this is evidenced by being moved to and from this title by the same person in quick succession) do qualify as G6, but this only applies to some of the redirects that would fall under this criterion (either because they were created deliberately or because it isn't obvious whether creation was intentional or not). Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Agree with editor Cremastra that these are harmless and possibly a bit helpful as {{R from typo}}s; however, the issue is that they are being deleted anyway and clogging RfD, which begs for a solution. And this solution does the trick as long as care is taken not to delete needed redirects that just look like the bad guys. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm worried that, as worded, the proposed criterion doesn't take into account page history that (a) may be required to be kept for attribution in the case of redirects from merges (which might lead to accidental breaches of licensing requirements), or (b) is otherwise useful; both of which are listed in the redirect guideline's reasons for keeping redirects. I'm also worried that it doesn't take into account the age of these redirects - some may have existed for a significant length of time and/or may be redirects with old history, which are listed in the guideline as redirects that should not normally be deleted without good reason & that should be left alone. I also share Cremastra's view about these redirects being harmless - in RfD discussions I've seen where such redirects have been nominated, I sometimes see WP:RDAB being cited; however, that shortcut links to an essay that doesn't explain why such redirects are costly enough as to warrant deletion (as opposed to being cheap). With the greatest respect to Paine Ellsworth,^/gen I'm very hesitant to think we should be creating a new CSD criterion for redirects that may be being deleted at RfD when (arguably) they should be being kept, especially when they are possibly...helpful (which is another reason in the guideline for keeping them). Only a comment for now while things are still mulling around in my head, but I think I'll add a bolded !vote at some point relatively soon. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong oppose per my comments above. I am heavily unconvinced that these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion in the first place. To take a few recent RfD examples ([6] [7], [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]), often in such discussions the only reason given for deleting them is per WP:RDAB - but, as I mentioned above, that essay section doesn't explain why these redirects are at all costly and/or problematic (and so, arguably, isn't a valid rationale for deletion - especially when considering that redirects are cheap is one of the guiding principles of RfD). I'm concerned that a local consensus may have formed at RfD to delete these redirects, and I wouldn't want to create a speedy deletion criterion that further embeds this. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Considering many RfD participants don't watch this page or subscribe to FRS, is it reasonable to advertise this RfC via an editnotice at RfD? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Create a temporary criterion per Steel and Cryptic. These redirects are a countable list and will go away in some time. Hence I would not prefer a "R5" as this becomes redundant once the backlog is gone. Also, we need the updated wordings incorporating Crouch Swale's suggestions about page history, which was also A Smart Kitten's concern. Jay 💬 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with making it temporary is that this backlog already built up once, so removing it once this current issue is resolved allows it to build up again. The other two temporary criteria were to deal with issues that definitively weren't going to recur, which is not the case with this; people will still inevitably create these bad redirects. Why take away a useful tool? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding behind the suggestions for a temporary criterion is that once the backlog is cleared, the combination of a report, R3 and G6 would mean there aren't enough redirects to meet NEWCSD criterion 3 (frequent). Of course there is nothing stopping us enacting a temporary criterion and then making it permanent later if the issue remains ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there's a choice, I'd definitely take a temporary criterion over nothing at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with caveat that it excludes redirects with a substantial non-redirect history. That situation is rare enough to be worth discussing; and there could easily be situations where eg. an article was turned into a redirect that fits this description, which nobody noticed, and is then listed under this CSD - it wouldn't even have to have been done maliciously (although ofc it could be.) And if there is a history, whether due to a merge or whatever, this CSD would usually be the wrong approach anyway - in that case you'd want to move the redirect to preserve history and attribution, rather than create a new one that lacks them. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:CHEAP. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#WP:ECR as a side step to WP:CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See #RfC: Status of G5 (in which you already participated) above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's... a misuse of removing ExCon... Primefac (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time there's been a de-facto convention to delete empty subcategories of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets as soon as they become empty. I attempted to add this in June 2022, but was reverted. I still think it should be added to the list somewhere, either as an explicit new criterion, back to G6 as in my original attempt, or to C1, as the current system seems to be working fine and I doubt we are going to convince the admins doing these deletions to wait seven days. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this can't be combined with the empty dated maintenance category G6 subcriterion - perhaps as something to the effect of "categories internal to Wikipedia that cannot reasonably be expected to be repopulated", but worded less awkwardly. I agree they're both better off in C1. The timing difference doesn't bother me, much like how it can be bypassed for certain files in F5. —Cryptic 03:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I think Cryptic suggests, I'd be happy with a rewording of C1 to allow immediate deletion as part of C1 similar to F5 ('categories internal to Wikipedia that cannot reasonably be expected to be repopulated' or even just 'categories that cannot reasonably be expected to be repopulated') but that is likely a broader discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion criteria should be objective, which that isn't. And Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009 (because of contested BLARs or soft deletions I think) has been deleted so many times that when it becomes empty I at least would reasonably expect it to be repopulated. I think it's better to explicitly list categories that can be deleted instantly when they become empty so that even an admin who isn't familiar with the processes they represent would know when to speedy delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 86#Empty monthly maintenance categories * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can make this more objective without just limiting to these two specific cases? The main objection to the C4 proposal at your link was that it didn't actually do anything except change what row admins clicked on the deletion drop-down menu. —Cryptic 04:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at with "internal to Wikipedia" - I guess the usual wording is "project categories" - is that I wanted to eliminate any chance of it being applied to a non-hidden category that ever held a mainspace page. That's veering too far into NEWCSD#2 territory for me to be comfortable with.

I do have some misgivings about unforeseen consequences of broadening these subcriteria like this - and I do consider the sockpuppets examples to be de-facto subcriteria. Paging through C1 deletions in 2024, I worry a little whether people would use this to immediately speedy cats like Category:User cr-N or Category:Wikipedia featured topics Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars or Category:NA-Class vital articles in Mathematics, and even if so, how much of a problem that is. —Cryptic 04:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems better to have these be top-level sections, rather than under a redundant "List of criteria" heading. Remsense诉 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current structure of the ToC (with "criteria" being the same level as "non-criteria" and "obsolete criteria") makes perfect sense to me. —Kusma (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is more strictly logical, but it is slightly less good in terms of convenience—or at least it is for me, using Vector 2022, where the ToC is permanently on the side, and top-level headings are collapsed by default. Remsense诉 06:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not make things worse because Vector 2022 is broken. —Kusma (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would still prefer find this layout preferable barring any particular visual presentation, for what its worth. I don't think Vector 2022 is broken, I quite like it, but it happens to emphasize what I find to be this genre of minor issue.

When the main point of an article isn't stashed under one heading, it works exactly how I want it to. See also: articles about historical events with a monolithic "History" section for no practical reason beyond category theory. Remsense诉 07:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: biographical articles where some editor has decided the article needs sections and implemented that by adding a "Biography" or "Life" section containing all but the first paragraph. Anyway I like the new flatter hierarchy. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see where Remsense is coming from on this. With the title of the page being Criteria for speedy deletion, at first glance, it does seem a little redundant to have a section on the page titled List of criteria. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 06:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That might be worth looking at. Done here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question about whether my interpretation is correct that a slightly different version of G5 is correct. There is a discussion in progress at MFD, so it is not important right now whether this is G5, but I would like other views. A draft was created by an account that was then globally locked by a steward. The reason for the global lock is that the account is a sockpuppet of another globally locked account, and the earlier account had been globally locked before the draft was created. So my question is whether this would be speedy-deletable as G5, and my opinion is yes, but I would like another opinion. A global lock is a technical mechanism for preventing a user from logging on, so it is really a form of block. A sockpuppet of a globally locked user is evading a block in a way similar to a sockpuppet of a user that has been blocked on the English Wikipedia. So my question is whether my understanding is correct, that this draft can be deleted as G5. Since it is already at MFD, we can let the MFD run this time, but I would like to know whether, in the future, such drafts (or articles) can be nominated for G5. It doesn't look exactly like a normal G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is the same as yours: that the article can be nominated under G5. I don't see any difference between a global lock and a local block or ban. Of course in any particular case (and I don't know what this one is) no action or an XfD discussion may be better. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken about it being a draft. It's a user talk page. The MFD is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Sakda Kulnaphang . Other editors have said that the originator was spamming. The portions of the posts that I can read look like spam. I !voted to Delete because Wikipedia doesn't have a use for advertising by blocked sockpuppets. The nominator probably tagged it for MFD rather than for G5 because it doesn't look like a typical G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did tag it for CSD -- twice -- before bringing it to MFD. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that user talk pages are not generally deleted barring clear and obvious issues (G10, outing, death threats, etc). Primefac (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, user_talk pages are not generally deleted at MfD. The rare main exception has been that the talk page has no history of being used as a talk page, eg a NOTWEBHOST dump was placed on an unused talk page.

Problematic talk pages can often be completely sufficiently dealt with by blanking. Where that is not good enough, the page should probably be quietly referred to WP:Oversight. If blanking is not good enough, it is a worse idea to advertise the problem at MfD.

I’ve never seen a good reason to tag a usertalk page with U5, or a good reason to expand u5 to user_talk.

On the use of G5, especially with global blocks, I’ve seen that it quickly becomes technical, with necessary attention to detail on the time of edit and time of block, and I really think these questions are best referred to WP:SPI clerks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that user talk pages should only be speedily deleted if every single revision is either blank or eligible for speedy deletion. Sure, that's how every speedy deletion is supposed to work, but it's especially important for user talk pages because their purpose means that they often have edits from users other than the one the user talk page is about. I don't think that U5 would apply to User talk:Sakda Kulnaphang because of the namespace, and I dunno if G5 is applicable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]