Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

C4 – unused maintenance categories

Hi all. I am thinking of drafting a new category CSD, which would cover unused maintenance categories. It would cover two related situations. The first is it would split from G6 empty dated maintenance categories from the past, and thereby lessen the load G6 is bearing. The second case is maintenance categories no longer used by a template. As an example, Category:Eiei-year — used with year parameter(s) equals year in page title was at one point populated by {{eiei-year}}, but that template no longer populates that category after a rewrite. It is not a G8 because {{eiei-year}} still exists – it just no longer populates that category. (Note that empty != unused: categories which happen to be empty are not necessarily unused. I am talking about categories a template does not populate under any circumstances.)

NEWCSD checklist (I am only focusing on case two, because case one is already eligible for CSD):

1. Objective: Y Obviously objective: either a category is in use or it is not
2. Uncontestable: Y As a regular CFD closer, I have only seen these get deleted unanimously (see my list below)
3. Frequent: Y case one is the most common reason G6 is used (see Taxonomy of G6 deletions), and see below for case two
4. Nonredundant: Y I guess case two could be a part of G6, but the last thing we need is to shove more deletion reasons into G6. And obviously case one is currently part of G6, but getting this out of G6 is a feature, not a bug.

Is this something people would be inclined to support? Are there other related cases which should be included? If so, we can work on wording, but I wanted to get others' input first. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 17:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be pedantic, WP:G8 currently says Categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates, so a redirected template that no longer uses a cat would make the cat eligible for G8. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{eiei-year}} was moved (per WP:TPN), not redirected to a different template. I was just using the shortcut because that is what the categories used in their names. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 17:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my misunderstanding. I would still argue that if the template is not populating the category, it is eligible for G8. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Last discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 86#Empty monthly maintenance categories, which more or less petered out due to lack of participation. I'm all in favor, with mild preference towards merging the main case into C1 (without a timeout) rather than a separate C4. —Cryptic 17:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd agree this makes sense similar to G14 and R4 splits of G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this as well - turns a deletion people (including myself) are doing anyway by stretching G6 and G8 in areas they don't quite into a clear and objective criterion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I continue to think this is not a good idea, for the reasons I gave in the last discussion: "All it seems to do is shift these deletions from one category to another, and while I agree that G6 is overused, the proper solution is to talk with admins who are using it incorrectly (and go to DRV if necessary), not to make a new criterion for something that undeniably is 'uncontroversial maintenance'" Per the closure there, this would require an RfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Another thing that I should've made more clear: case two is currently not (at least in my understanding) covered by any CSD criteria. They were in my CSD log because of {{db-xfd}}. I guess that could be described as uncontroversial maintenance, but stretching G6 even further is unappealing. Nor is stretching G8 to cover cases in which the "dependent" page still exists, imo. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Crouch, Swale and Pppery. Stretching criteria on a regular basis is something that we strive to avoid and adding making G6 larger and more complicated is not a solution we should even contemplate undertaking. The nom presents a good case that a new criterion is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a bit of a concern with respect to the template rewrite part namely if consensus is required for it or not otherwise for non protected templates anyone could rewrite them and the category ends up being deleted. Maybe the dependant on template part should be added to C1 to allow a week before deletion to allow for objections. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Has this ever actually been a problem? A careful admin applying this criterion would have to look at the history to see when (and hence why) the category was removed. and if there's some hairy dispute involved they won't delete it. On the other hand non-careful admins will just use G6 for this anyway so in neither case does the waiting period help. And undeletions are cheap anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, before starting a formal RfC here is my draft wording of C4:

  C4. Unused maintenance categories

  This applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past (e.g. Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2004) or tracking categories no longer used by a template after a rewrite. Note that empty maintenance categories are not necessarily unused—this criterion is for categories which will always be empty, not just currently empty. If you are unsure whether a category is still being used by a template, consider asking the creator of the category or at the template's talk page before tagging.

  I think we should also allow the creator to remove the CSD tag, because they are the person who best understands whether the category is being used or not. Comments? Suggestions? Typos? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does that really meet NEWCSD #1? Proving that a category will always be empty can be challenging, and I'm not convinced we should just let admins figure it out unilaterally. If someone tagged Category:Technology articles with topics of unclear notability, for instance, what would be due diligence for me as a reviewing admin? Examining the source code and history of Template:Notability in detail might help, but even that doesn't rule out that some other template somewhere is using it. I suppose I could run a search like this one, but it's not realistic to expect a deleting admin to do that. If it's possible to be unsure whether a category is still being used by a template, this probably isn't straightforward enough for CSD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't the deletion tag have an insource search link built into it so all you have to do is click it? Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We can (and maybe do?) encourage categories that may be sometimes empty to have the {{Empty category}} notice on them. Additionally we should strongly encourage category descriptions to link to all the templates that populate that category. These won't quite solve the issue completely but it very nearly will. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We do use {{empty category}} on all potentially empty categories because it stops the category from appearing in the C1 report. And I agree that both including the insource search link on the tag and an encouragement to note which templates use the category should be sufficient. The worst case scenario is a category needs to be REFUNDed, and at that point we can make a note on the category itself saying something like This category is used by {{foo}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In which case this has my support. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, splitting G6 is generally a good idea if we want to clarify that it is not "clearly unnecessary pages that should be deleted". Category pages almost never have any interesting history; everything about categories is on other pages, so there is very little harm in deleting any empty categories as long as there is no limit on undeletion or recreation. —Kusma (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I've left a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a near unanimous consensus to adopt C4. The argument that this criterion would be duplicative of G6 and would not solve any problems was roundly rejected. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Should C4 (unused maintenance categories) be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion? 03:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed text:

C4. Unused maintenance categories

This applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past (e.g. Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2004) or tracking categories no longer used by a template after a rewrite. Note that empty maintenance categories are not necessarily unused—this criterion is for categories which will always be empty, not just currently empty. If you are unsure whether a category is still being used by a template, consider asking the creator of the category or at the template's talk page before tagging.

• Support as proposer. There are two benefits that I see from this change. One, it lessens the load that WP:G6 is carrying. However, the primary reason that I came here is to allow for speedy deletion of additional unused maintenance categories. As an example, Category:EstcatCountry — used with year parameter(s) equals year in page title was previously populated by {{EstcatCountry}}, but no longer did so after a rewrite. It is not a G8 because {{EstcatCountry}} still exists. As a regular closer at CfD, I have only ever seen them get unanimously deleted and it is a fairly regular occurance (you can see the collapsed list above at List of entries in just my own CSD log since June 1 for unused maintenance categories (it is possible I missed some, but I think I got them all); n.b. they were only CSD candidates as {{db-xfd}}s). The WP:NEWCSD checklist:
  1. Objective: Y Obviously objective: either a category is in use or it is not
  2. Uncontestable: Y As a regular CFD closer, I have only seen these get deleted unanimously (see my list below)
  3. Frequent: Y ~20 in the past two months at CFD, and many more which are currently handled by G6
  4. Nonredundant: Y I guess it could be a part of G6, but the last thing we need is to shove more deletion reasons into G6. And obviously dated maintence categories are already part of G6, but G6 is already overloaded and decreasing that burden is a feature, not a bug.
• In sum, this would decrease the burden on both CFD and G6 while also saving editor time rubber-stamping pro forma discussions. One note that did come up in the above discussion is that we can program the {{db-c4}} tag to include an insource: search to make it easy for the patrolling admin to double-check that the category is in use. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: T:CENT, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and WT:CFD. Pinging participants in the above discussion: @Crouch, Swale, Cryptic, Extraordinary Writ, Gonnym, Kusma, Pppery, Primefac, and Thryduulf. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What's wrong with leaving it at G6? G6 says "This is for uncontroversial maintenance" – including, but not limited to, empty dated maintenance categories. Permanently empty undated maintenance categories look like the definition of "uncontroversial maintenance". This will add extra complexity (more CSD cats to watch) without changing the end result (the cats always get deleted). I'm not sure that adopting this would solve any problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per above, the "what's wrong" is that G6 is overloaded and splitting some would make it easier for reviewers. It also lessens the potential hassle of typing a reason. Support Aaron Liu (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aaron Liu, Category:Candidates for technical speedy deletion currently contains two (2) pages. What makes you think that two pages is "overloaded"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing it is overloaded in the sense of doing too many different things. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) All speedy deletions are uncontroversial maintenance by definition. Deleting empty nonmaintenance categories is uncontroversial maintenance. Deleting user subpages when their user says they're done with them is uncontroversial maintenance. Deleting disambiguation pages after everything linked from them has already been deleted is uncontroversial maintenance.
    What makes having different criteria meaningful is that A) you can show that a given criterion is known to be uncontroversial; B) users can easily tell why a given page was deleted, and if they care, find the underlying discussions why it's uncontroversial; C) you can list what kinds of things that, while superficially meeting a criterion (such as "AfricA" not being a plausible misspelling of Africa), are nonetheless widely considered to be controversial; D) you can find specific instances where deletion is controversial, and E) you can find the sorts of deletions you're willing to make: I don't act on third party {{db-move}}s anymore because I always get blamed when the move turns out to be controversial, and sometimes my brain's too fried to deal with G11s but I have some spare time I could spend deleting empty maintenance cats if they weren't mixed in with those untouchable db-moves.
    Worse, the controversial and incorrect uses of G6 are getting drowned out by formulaic, well-defined subcriteria of G6 that are only included in G6 because it was too much of a hassle to get an independent criterion passed. Empty maintenance categories are the single largest identifiable group of G6s, accounting for more than one in six out of every deletion mentioning "G6" anywhere in the deletion summary. There's so many that they make it near-impossible to find genuine abuses. Show me an admin who's never declined a {{db-test}} where the closest thing to a test was "OK, so you tried to create an autobiography of yourself without anybody noticing. Your test failed, and I noticed and now I'm going to get an admin to delete it!" and I'll show you an admin who hasn't performed enough speedy deletions to talk knowledgeably about the subject. Or maybe one who just doesn't give a fuck and will happily twinkle-delete anything you put in front of them.
    That, of course, is a (terrible) example of a G2, not a G6; but I've declined {{db-error}}s that amount to the same thing. Lumping them in with automatic deletions made as part of a page move that don't require you to push a delete button or provide a deletion summary or even be an admin, and with unarguably-non-speedy deletions where a specific consensus was formed at TFD, and "Hooray, we've finally cleared the backlog of unreferenced pages! (up until December 2004, anyway)", in a speedy deletion criterion that was created for temporary deletions made as part of history merges, makes it impossible to find such abuses. —Cryptic 04:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made several attempts to do what Cryptic suggested at https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/61527/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 83#New taxonomy. I found a very large number of different uses, some of which IMO met the criteria and some of which didn't, and then an unclassified "other" which made up a third of the entire set. I also made an attempt once at https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/62274 to find questionable G8s largely out of spite at someone arguing G8 applied in a case where I felt it clearly didn't. Neither went anywhere because there were too many "other" for me to have the will to look at, and today I limit WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#G6 to old mainspace pages. In the unlikely event I decide to attempt either of those again, having this subcriterion split out won't make the G6 classification runs any easier (dated maintenance category runs were among the easiest to filter out there), and won't make the G8 classification runs that much easier (the biggest problem I had there is that there's no way to find out that a redirect was broken without looking at the deleted history). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments in the previous section. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per proposer and my previous comments. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No one seems to know how to nominate this type of page (C1, G6, G8, etc) so putting these into a dedicated and specific group will ease the burden not only on the nominator but also on the patrolling admin. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Primefac. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• While we're at it, let's explicitly include empty "Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example"/"Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of examples" categories. Last time I did a G6 taxonomy they were one of the more common kinds of G6, and, assuming we're fine with them being deleted instantly when they become empty, should put them here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support that, too. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. I think that falls under "unused maintenance categories" but there is no harm and possible benefit to making it explicit. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  inb4 someone argues WP:CREEP Aaron Liu (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference, these categories are generated via Template:Sockpuppet. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, anything that reduces the "catch-all" status of G6 is a win. Yes, technically we could have literally nothing but G6 as criterion, and argue that all other criteria count as "uncontroversial maintenance", but having precise criteria allows for more specificity, and spells out what kind of stuff is already known to be uncontroversial deletions. This is a very good example of a criterion that is both uncontroversial (these categories are never going to be populated again) and precise enough to be formulated as a criterion of its own. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the sort of thing that would be uncontroversial post-enactment, but as long as we're still discussing, can we link WP:Maintenance category here to make it crystal clear which cats are covered and which need to go through the week-long C1 process? —Cryptic 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Separately, suggest "categories which are expected to always be empty", rather than "categories which will always be empty". It's not at all rare for empty dated maintenance cats to get temporarily repopulated, such as when a redirection is reverted or somebody recreates an article with a cut-and-paste of a predeletion version. —Cryptic 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my previous comments. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - By explicitly limiting this to maintenance categories that will never again be populated, i.e. dated maintenance categories that have become empty, this criterion allows for specificity and clear guidance to any admins. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Primefac. C F A 💬 22:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• support: seems like it'd be useful per nom, Primefac, & Chaotic Enby. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In addition to the ones that are currently handled in CfD, such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_24#Category:Technology_articles_with_topics_of_unclear_notability, dated maintenance categories (such as the monthly ones in Category:Articles_that_need_to_differentiate_between_fact_and_fiction) are routinely deleted per G6 when they become empty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eligibility for C4

Marking a category with {{possibly empty category}} shows that a category is still in use. Therefore this should make it ineligible for C4. Can we make this more explicit? (Asking because I just had some categories deleted under C4 which clearly had this template on them.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already are ineligible - this criterion is for categories which will always be empty, not just currently empty.. I suggest putting something like "This category is ineligible for speedy deletion under criterion C4" in the text of the {{possibly empty category}} template, along with trouting the administrators/taggers who are clearly not reading the actual text of the CSD (if they aren't reading the details of C4 they probably aren't reading the details of the other criteria either). Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{possibly empty category}} does not show that a category is still in use; it just shows that it was in use at one point in time. Things like template rewrites are not automatically reflected by the use of {{possibly empty category}}. I think we need to add the insource magic to {{db-c4}} and create a new template which does indicate which templates use the category. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agreed with HouseBlaster. I would say most C4 deletions had {{possibly empty category}} on them at one point, actually, because they were maintainenance categories of the sort that were exempt from C1, and then something changed to make them no longer populated. There should be a separate template listing the templates that claim to use a category, so the C4-deleting admin can validate whether they in fact do use it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added insource functionality to {{Db-c4/sandbox}}; thoughts on the design? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, what category does illegal stuff fall under?

Lots of very scintillating conversation above, unfortunately none of it seems to address a rather simple core issue: what actual category is it under?

If I see something illegal, such as "child corn" ^[sic] — not asking whether I should contact the functionaries — which of these do I select from the dropdown?

The actual options that I get in the dropdown menu when I delete a page (e.g. the contents of MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown) are:

• General (can apply to any page)
  • G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible
  • G2: Test page
  • G3: Vandalism
  • G3: Blatant hoax
  • G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
  • G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban
  • G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup
  • G7: One author who has requested deletion – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND
  • G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page
  • G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP
  • G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion
  • G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement
  • G13: Abandoned draft or Articles for Creation submission – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND/G13
  • G14: Unnecessary disambiguation page
• Talk pages
  • G8: Talk page of a nonexistent or deleted page
• Redirect pages
  • R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace
  • R3: Recently created, implausible redirect
  • R4: Redirect in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons
  • G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page
  • X3: Redirect with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation
• Other criteria
  • Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days
  • WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection
  • WP:BLPPROD: Nominated for seven days with no reliable sources present in the article

I would say that there is, in fact, no CSD category for them, since every category is very rigorously defined and does not include illegal content. All possible options smell strongly of bullshit rules-lawyering.

• "It's a G4 because, uh, if you think about it, man, we've already had deletion discussions that reached consensus to delete all videos of men having sex with horses"
• "It's a G5 because, uh, if you think about it, man, anybody who posts a video of a man having sex with a horse is blocked."
• "It's a G6 because, uh, if you think about it, man, it's not very controversial to delete that, is it?"
• "It's a G10 because, uh, if you think about it, man, it's defamatory to the horse."
• "It's a G11 because, uh, if you think about it, man, it's trying to convince me to have sex with a horse."
• "It's a G12 because, uh, if you think about it, man, horses can't release content as CC-BY-SA."

The only remotely plausible thing I can think of is to manually enter it in as a G9, which I am pretty sure creates an actual urgent issue for WMF Legal, so I do not think it is a good idea to do this. jp×g🗯️ 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a WP:CSD case, it's WP:CRD (any of RD1-4 would apply) then WP:OVERSIGHT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm -- but the revdel criteria don't show up in the dropdown on Special:Delete and WP:REVDEL does not explicitly mention actual page deletions anywhere that I can see. jp×g🗯️ 02:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do know you can type something there without selecting anything from the dropdown, right? Revision deletion doesn't work if there isn't a good version to revert to anyway; and the particular cases raised are likely to be files, which also don't really play nicely with revision deletion.

JPxG, you were made an admin because people had confidence in your good judgment, not in how well you're able to ruleslawyer in order to argue you're permitted to take an action that makes the encyclopedia better. This is the sort of thing WP:Ignore all rules really is for, for all that it's usually poorly-regarded when it comes to deletion.

That said, you don't want to have something like "02:42, 31 July 2024 JPxG (talk | contribs | block) deleted page File:Me and Joey at Disneyland.jpg (omg iar child corn HALP!)" in your deletion log, for the same reason as the bolded text midway through Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight - you pick something banal for the log comment like G7 or F5. (And if the file was at File:Omg_child_corn.jpg or whatever, go ahead and revdelete your deletion log too.) Then you mail oversight and block the uploader and it's not your problem anymore, at least once they're out of sleeper socks.

And if you insist on playing Nomic, G3 is closest. WP:CSD#G3 → Further information: Wikipedia:Vandalism and... → WP:Vandalism#Image vandalism → "using any image in a way that is disruptive". Genuinely illegal imagery can't fall under the "if they have encyclopedic value" clause. —Cryptic 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crypic has it almost spot on. It is arguable that an image of child pornography could serve an encyclopaedic use on the Child pornography article it definitely cannot elsewhere, but uploading an image that you know it is illegal for the WMF to host is unarguably vandalism.

Certainly in terms of child pornography and similar, anything that is not the uploader's own work will almost certainly either be a copyright violation (the normal laws around copyright are not impacted by it being illegal), or the free license claimed will be unverifiable. Claims that material of this nature is the uploader's own work will also almost certainly be unverifiable (by us, the relevant law enforcement body may be interested though) - I would also argue that it is not credible someone would openly claim images that are illegal to create were created by them if it were true.

All of this means that such material is covered under G3 and G12. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly problematic ("illegal") content should not be CSD'd. The Oversight team should be contacted directly. If a page must be quickly and expediently deleted, contact an admin directly (IRC, Discord, email to an admin you know is active, etc). That being said, it's not the end of the world if a page is tagged (as Thryduulf suggests above) for G3, but keep in mind that throws it into multiple well-viewed categories so it will likely draw more attention. As much as it might seem like a good idea, {{db-reason|Child corn}} as suggested above is a bad idea, primarily because it increases the chances of that showing up in the deletion log itself (and therefore requiring more hiding). Primefac (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Thryduulf was suggesting that non-admins tag material like this {{db-g3}}, let alone {{db|child corn}}. I know I wasn't; I was responding directly to and advising another admin. For a non-admin, yes, tagging oversightable material is a bad idea - not only is CAT:CSD highly visible on Wikipedia, there are some... fine... projects that preferentially mirror the pages in it, the better to fight the Evils of Rampant Deletionism. —Cryptic 13:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, assuming I send somebody a message or whatever, it's still going to be a few minutes before they get it; am I just supposed to refrain from deleting it during this interval and leave the goat sex pics/etc sitting there untouched until they get around to formally OSing it? This feels like it cannot be the case. jp×g🗯️ 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an admin delete or revdel it with a bland summary. If you aren't and it's a busy page revert the edit/blank the page with a bland summary. If you aren't an admin and it's a page with few likely readers just leave it - especially if you aren't autopatrolled. The goal is to avoid drawing attention, and most OS requests get actioned in much less than 5 minutes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a G15 that is similar to WP:RD4 should be created so it's obvious to admins that they should do what Thryduulf wrote above. I'm thinking something like:

G15. Oversightable information
This applies if every revision of a page is eligible for suppression. See WP:REVDEL#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight for when and how to use this criterion.

Nickps (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! The goal is to avoid drawing attention to oversightable material, not putting up a bright red arrow pointing to it! Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that CSD would draw any attention to the oversightable material. Much like RD4, admins would never invoke it by name, they would put some other bland reason in the field and contact oversight, just like you said they should. Nickps (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G▉? jp×g🗯️ 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will draw attention because clueless admins will use it in their log comments even if it says not to. Source: there's one deletion, two log deletions, and 135 revision deletions that mention "RD4". (With the false positives like "prod contested by Richard44306 at WP:REFUND" and "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Ford489) in violation of ban or block" filtered out, but I haven't looked at most of the actual deletions except for their log comments. All the ones labeled like "RD4, serious BLP vio" and "RD4/WP:YOUNG" and "RD4: Personal and non-public information: real name and harassment" that I've spot-checked were the real deal though.) —Cryptic 00:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I didn't know RD4 was misused so much. Maybe just adding some text that says "admins can delete oversightable material while waiting for oversight per the instructions at WP:REVDEL#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight" to the lead without assigning a criterion number would work, but honestly, it might be better to have it be an unspoken rule, so some admin doesn't delete with reason "oversight". Nickps (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think at most we need something (a hatnote perhaps) that points to the instructions elsewhere, perhaps "For material that needs to be oversighted see ...". Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that. jp×g🗯️ 11:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it has to be a CSD (revdel doesn't work well for whatever reason), I'd delete under the broadest criterion with the most vanilla summary (G6-Housekeeping or G3 - Vandalism or something). The core takeaways should be to follow up with the appropriate functionaries immediately, do not tag it, either straight delete it or leave it, and do not draw attention to the nature of the material in whatever documentation you leave. (I could be misinformed here, I have zero experience and this is a peanut gallery comment) Tazerdadog (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G14 and empty set indexes

Should G14, or another clause, apply to empty set indexes? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hepnar. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• G14 currently does not apply to set indexes. My first thought is that there isn't a good reason why it shouldn't but then I realised that some set indexes can have viable prose or list content so there would need to be some qualification. Thinking a bit more on this I'm not convinced that spending the time to craft that is worthwhile for the number of times situations like this arise (NEWCSD point 3). An alternative would be to adjust A3 so that it applies to lists with no entries. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"File pages without a corresponding file"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to move the language of: "File pages without a corresponding file" from G8 to F2 on the grounds that this circumstance better fits the nature of F2 than G8. This is not a major or important change, but editors would be pleased to see such deletions cited to F2 instead of G8 going forward. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

G8 currently includes "File pages without a corresponding file". I would suggest moving this unchanged to F2 instead, as it seems to fit better there with all of the other ways a file can be malformed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. These are arguably "missing" files anyway so it makes sense to merge there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems that no one is opposing the move/merge, and I don't mind the changes as well. Shall the change be boldly done right away then per WP:EDITCONSENSUS? George Ho (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. When it comes to changes to policies like CSD it's always better not to rush things. The question is less than two days old, let's give people at least a week. Thryduulf (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A week has passed since the OP. George Ho (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose as a situation that rarely comes up, and you cannot expect taggers and deleters to suddenly be aware of a change. Basically I oppose most changes as unnecessary and changing criteria causes people to not know what they are doing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Grouping this into F2 is more appropriate since F2 is about file pages that are broken in some way while G8 is about pages depending on non-existent/deleted pages. The move should make the criteria easier to learn and apply for newcomers. To address the concern that Graeme raised, we could have a grace period where we allow tagging and deletion under either category for a while and a clear date for when we fully switch over. QwertyForest (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've advertised this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion. Additionally if it is enacted then it can (and should) be announced in Wikipedia:Admin news, improving awareness of the change. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: F2 is the cleanest and narrowest CSD for this type of deletion, and it makes no sense to have fully-redundant clauses. Re Graeme's oppose, people will learn, and there is no need or expectation of immediate awareness. Re qwerty, I don't think a formal grace period is required, just don't bite anyone who uses the old criterion inadvertently. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, there. Simply asking people not to bite is probably simpler. QwertyForest (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - F2 is the natural fit for an issue where the file is somehow broken or not there. Changes to the CSD criteria are advertised in various appropriate places and any mistagging can be dealt a good dose of common sense. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just want to comment on the last few comments. G8 and F2 both apply to these pages. While there are some changes proposed, there is no need to add a prohibition for continuing to use G8. It's more a proposed change in examples, and the deletion template, than the actual criteria. Talk of grace periods and 'allowing deletion' is a bit misplaced, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I was about to close and implement this but have a question. F2 already speaks of "files that are missing"; does this refer to a different scenario from "File pages without a file"? They sound like the same thing to me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the intent there is for images that 404 (or equivalent), like what was happening with a specific file version here. The specific wording was added in this edit in October 2015 without discussion I can find, so no help there. I was kind of surprised that edit's so late, since I don't remember this happening much after 2007 or so; but then, all my deletions mentioning "F2" were in 2015 or later, so if that's really the case, it wasn't me cleaning them up. —Cryptic 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That makes sense, thanks. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

C4 and author removal

I suggest like G14 that we allow authors to remove C4 tags given that most such authors will be experienced and this may allow someone who disagrees with a template rewrite to object. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that most of this was previously in G6 so apart from the new part of template categories from a rewrite authors could previously remove such tags and its clearly not the same as the likes of A7 or G11 that we shouldn't allow. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any good reason not to allow author removal for C4. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § CSD X4 criterion proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § CSD X4 criterion proposal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template doc pages that have been converted

There are two types of template /doc pages that have been sent to TfD and always deleted. Navigation templates that had their doc converted to {{Navbox documentation}} and WikiProject banners that had their doc converted to the automatic one with |DOC=auto. Can these be tagged with G6? Sending them to TfD really adds nothing to the process. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protect edit request

Change the number for spam to 1 as per Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam Who am I? Talk to me! What have I done? 12:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous1261: You should use one of the relevant templates when making an edit request to ensure it is seen. However, I do not understand what change you are requesting. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. For the edit request, someone else corrected it. Who am I? Talk to me! What have I done? 02:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Keep local#RfC: Limit usage of this template to files which are fully or partly own work

Someone has created an RFC at Template talk:Keep local#RfC: Limit usage of this template to files which are fully or partly own work that seems relevant to this policy, specifically WP:CSD#F8. Since the proposal there is very similar to the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 89#F8 and keep local, I'm also pinging the people involved in that discussion: @Asclepias, Fastily, JPxG, Marchjuly, Nikkimaria, and The Summum Bonum. Anomie⚔ 00:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]