Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Top

Somehow the category content is getting stuck inside the shortcut box... someone please fix this. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This format is not working - Tεx τ urε 21:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: original format was restored.

Cluttering

Since the pages on the list (like Template:Delete) will always show up, and the amount of speedy deletions is probably always less than the amount of pages on the list, can we create a seperate category for thos? Like Catergory:About Speedy Deletions or Category: Concerning Candidates for Speedy Deletion or whatever? --Dyss 01:13, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ideally: yes, we should. Template:Delete and friends would best be in their own category. Unfortunately, there is no way to do this under the current MediaWiki software. It is the template itself that contains a link to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion; check out the source.

In any case, there's only a few static category members — don't worry about them, they won't bite. :-) • Benc • 06:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right, most of the pages back when I posted this were empty images, not static pages. --Dyss 07:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there any way to modify the nonsense and delete templates to take an optional parameter that becomes the sorted name of the page in the category, like this:

[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|{{{parameter}}}]]

And when the the templates are inserted, like delete, a user will have to enter

That way, all of the templates will get sorted at the top under the '{' character, as no parameters have been specified for them, where the articles that call the template will get sorted under their appropriate article name. It would make maintaining this page a lot easier. If someone is better with template syntax, correct any of my mistakes. Also, would it be possible to utilize the "pipe trick" to get around this as well? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:05, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Also, why does the Template:Nonsense article get sorted at the top? Is this a bug, or is this something we can utilize to sort the list better? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:20, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Accidental template deletions

This has happened before: well-meaning admins don't read the category text, or at least not the section labelled "important note". The latest deletion:

10:49, 11 Oct 2004 Fuzheado deleted "Template:Nonsense" (content was: '{{deletebecause|this article violates the [[Wikipedia:patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] policy}}') (from the deletion log)
20:33, 11 Oct 2004 Angela modified "Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion" [1]

Please be careful in the future, being mindful of the instructions. Thanks, • Benc • 06:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

{{subst:delete}}?

You could use {{subst:delete}} to include the text from a template on the pages in question and manually delete the category. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Old warning message

The following notes about the KevinBot appeared on the article page for a few hours as a precaution.

The Kevinbot has marked a large number of articles for speedy deletion. The reason is that they have been moved to the Wiktionary (which is appropriate for most, if not all of them). However checking the Wiktionary I found no sign of the words that have supposedly been moved. In view of this, please check the KevinBot's speedy deletes before acting on them. Articles which do not yet appear on Wiktionary should not be deleted yet. Once things have been cleared up I will remove this warning message. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:50, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The articles are in the transwiki namespace on wiktionary. Also, the bot is not automated, every page that is listed here was selected by me as a candidate for speedy deletion after transwikifying the article. It is the responsibility of the administrators who maintain this page (which is not me) to determine if my nomination for speedy deletion is inapproprate. Finally, I have amended the template on the talk pages so that it links to the reference in Wiktionary. Also, I'm human and my bot might have unknown bugs, if a page wasn't actually transwikied, or if the edit history wasn't moved to the transwiki talk page, please let me know. I'm not malicious just trying to help keep the Wikipedia clean. (Should this converstaion be on the talk page?) Kevin Rector 15:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Luckily the caution was unnecessary but thanks to all who held off deleting while it was checked out. As it turns out the Bot is harmless (indeed useful) and now that Kevin has added an explanatory link to its summary text, it shouldn't cause others the worry that it caused me. Thanks, Kevin. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect broken?

When I go to CAT:CSD, it redirects to the Category, but there are no articles in it - not even {{delete}}, et. al. When I go there through the link on WP:CSD, everything works fine. Is this an error in category redirects? --Golbez 07:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that redirecting to a category only displays the text in the category, not the actual categorized material – ugen64 03:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy images

It is my understanding that images should not be speedied just because they are now on commons. Any other views? If I'm right, how can we stop it happening? Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

From what I know, images that I upload, and if I am the only person who uploaded the image, it can be speedied, just like with articles. Is there a template already that you can use to say "Speedy Delete This Image Since It Has Gone To The Commons?" Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

On another note, do we have to have the images on view here? I'd prefer not having to look at offensive pictures just because I visit this page. --Fred-Chess July 3, 2005 13:48 (UTC)

I think that is what happens on default. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Yea maybe. I wrote the above note just after having seen an image of "gay fellatio", on the page. I think it may be considered offensive by many who would then be reluctant to visit this page. --Fred-Chess July 5, 2005 00:56 (UTC)

Well, I know many of the images placed there are shocking, but I would rather see it here rather than over here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

As of 7-28-05, there has been sexual nude images tagged as speedy candidates! --SuperDude 20:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Advert

Just wanted to note here that I recently created Template:Advert and added it to the list of articles to not summarily delete as it will always appear on the list, if for some reason in the future this needs to be deleted please remove from the list before so as to avoid confusion. Jtkiefer 05:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

pornographic images

This is ridiculous, I am going to make a new template specializing on speedy candidates in the form of obscene images along with new categories with disclaimers. --SuperDude 20:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

These bogus images have finally been eliminated from the standard CSD category and are now in a more secluded category with a disclaimer security guard. For future speedy deletion tagging on obscene images, use this new template: {{speedyimage}}. --SuperDude 21:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

for the record, {{speedyimage}} was promptly deleted, and the above does not represent current policy. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

New delete templates

As you've probably noticed, there have been a a few new delete templates that have been created recently, including {{nn-bio}}, {{Db:a1}}, {{Deletebecause/empty}}, and {{Deletebecause/vanity}}. Most of these new templates have been nominated for deletion, and are currently being discussed at Templates for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Another page that will be deleted is The Secret Society of Jargon, a page that never had a chance to develop

Too long?

I do not see why there is a need for a full explanation on each template on this category. Having a list of them is fine to make it easier to keep track, but having two screenfuls of it is a bit too much. It should probably go somewhere on Wikipedia:Template messages instead. --cesarb 01:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is a better and fuller explantation than the one on WP:CSD currently. perhaps it should move there? DES ^(talk) 01:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

patent nonsense

I have a question about patent nonsense. Back when I was but a wee young editor, other users explained patent nonsense as being random gibberish, whereas actual English sentences, however useless, were not actually patent nonsense. Now that I am an admin and deleting CSD's, I see a lot of articles tagged for patent that I dont think fit the definition as it was explained to me by others. However, reasing the actual patent nonsense page, I see two definitions, the first, "Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. ", which I think well described nonsense as explained to me, and also "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it.", which is of course a bit gray, imo. So, for example, would the following text from an article tagged as nonsense actually be nonsense, in the opinion of others?

"Textual analysis when refering to the Constitution is analyzing the text. Breakdown what the words mean word for word."

I think that fits A1 just fine, but I'm a little iffy on that being nonsense, and I'd like some outside opinions before I make a campaign of leaving Nice-O-Grams on people's talk pages explaining what is and isn't nonsense. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not patent nonsense as is strictly defined in policy, nor is it the patent nonsense as is widely used (which is a lot wider definition, and probably for the best). I'd deleted it as a very short article though. --fvw * 06:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Db-attack

Questions re db-attack (CSD A6):

would it be worth identifying db-attack-tagged articles separately from other CSDs (perhaps a subcat?), on the grounds that these are (almost) always clearcut, and that these should be processed with particular urgency?
is it me or is there no particularly suitable template message to put on the talk page of someone who creates a db-attack article? Is it worth making one, and if so what should it say?

Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Something like {{attack}} for articles? Good idea. Use {{attack}} as a starting point and adapt it for articles that attack the subject. (But make it softer, like {{test}} or {{test2}} )- Tεx τ urε 22:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

Please do not use Wikipedia articles to make personal attacks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, take a look at the welcome page. Thank you.

I considered a link to WP:NPA (as in {{attack}}) but I don't think this would really be helpful here, since we're talking about anons attacking other people they know offline, not Wikipedians. (If a Wikipedian is the subject of a db-attack article, we already have {{attack}}.) Incidentally, I'm suggesting to call the template {{warn-attack}} as part of a new naming scheme I proposed at Template talk:Test. Rd232 ^talk 10:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Or how about this for silliness CSDs:

Please do not use Wikipedia to create nonsense articles; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. If you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, take a look at the welcome page. If you'd like to give free reign to your imagination please check out the Uncyclopedia here. Thank you.

Rd232 ^talk 16:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Done (with article title as parameter, like {{test2-n}}): {{Warn-nonsense}}. Rd232 ^talk 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Need {{db-hoax}}

We need a template called {{db-hoax}} for hoax pages. Hoax content doesn't seem to be specifically invluded in any of the existing templates. FranksValli 08:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

By hoax I presume you mean a serious and deliberate attempt to fool Wikipedians into accepting invalid information. Mere mucking about with what is clearly nonsensical is covered by WP:CSD G1; but a serious hoax shouldn't, AFAIK, be speedied, because if it isn't obviously nonsensical it doesn't fall under CSD, and should be AfD'd. If it's a serious hoax by definition it takes some research or specialised knowledge to reject, and therefore isn't nonsense - it's just untrue, and this is not speediable. Rd232 ^talk 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoaxes are not coverd by any of the existing templates, because unless they are open/obvious enough to be considered vandalism, they are not covered by any of the existing criteria. There was discussion on this point recently on the talk page of WP:CSD. As the criteria stand, a {{db-hoax}} template, unless its wording was narrowly limited to haoxes that are self-admitted or otherwise may be considered to fall under vandalism would be proposed for deletion on TfD right away. (Even if it were so limited I might nominate it for deletion, because such a misleading name wmight well casue lots of invalid speedy tags.) Hoaxes are not, in general, subject to speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 15:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Really it's only if it's patent nonsense (G1) or vandalism (G3) that it can be speedied. The "process is important" people show up at every juncture when we try to add/expand speedy categories. Stifle 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Db-attack subcat

I'd like to prioritise deletion of db-attack articles; I think a nasty attack article being queued for deletion for 12 hours instead of being deleted ASAP is substantially worse than a pointless vanity or nonsense article hanging around a while. Prioritising could be made by possible by having the relevant CSD template additionally add the article to a permanent subcat of CSD, which those who wish to prioritise can check first. (Note additionally - otherwise it would force people to check the subcat, rather than being an optional extra way of structuring the CSDs.) Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, an additional cat on the template used to mark attack pages would do no harm that I can think of (people could still delete them out of the main category if they find the subcat unwieldy), and while there is no guarantee every attack article is tagged witht he "right" template, it would still help out some when the cat is backloged. Speedyable copyviois might warrant such a subcat too. I'll say go for it. If someone can think of a good reason not to do this we can always revert the template and delete the cat later, no biggy. --Sherool (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no objections and seeing as Rd232 is aparently on a wikibreak I'll go ahead and create such a subcat, so we can try it out in practice. --Sherool (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers (wikibreak is more intention than achievement) :). Thanks for going ahead with it. Rd232 ^talk 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Tsd

Template:Tsd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Tsd. Thank you. --Wcquidditch | Talk 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixing a categorization bug

Previously, pages such as Wikipedia:Template messages/All and Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion were showing up in this category due to the use of the speedy deletion templates on those pages, even though this effect is not intended. I am presenting the following solution: for a test pages where the actual categorization is not wanted, simply add the parameter "displayonly=" when calling speedy-delete templates, which will then show the template visually without categorizing that page. For example, instead of the regular {{delete}}, use {{delete|displayonly=}} on those pages (the "=" sign must be included). I've edited all speedy deletion templates and currently the new parameter works with each one. The changes should be transparent; editors can keep using the same old syntax without noticing problems. Thanks to Nandesuka for temporarily unprotecting Template:Db-reason for editing. Shawnc 08:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I gather that all speedy requests end up here, but....

I added the template to the "article" Steve Pie, and it is not in the list here, nor has it been deleted. Perhaps there is a problem related to that last coding tweak? MSJapan 19:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what's going exactly, but I changed {{deletebecause}} to {{nonsense}} and now it appears. Rd232 ^talk 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There has been soem technical editing onn the speedy delte tempaltes recently, and that may have mucked up the category mechanism for a time. DES ^(talk) 00:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Small redesign

I have added a quick reference. I also used a trick to allow you to hide the reference and/or the preamble.

To hide the preamble ("There are a few, special cases ... Attack pages for speedy deletion"), put in your monobook.css:

#catcsdhide { display: none; }

To hide the quick reference:

#catcsdhide2 { display: none; }

To cause the quick reference to appear at the same font size as normal, instead of rather small:

#catcsdhide2 { font-size: 100% !important }

Yours, r3m0t ^talk 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have the top part {{hidden}}? Or use some javascript template that has a quick button to hide?-- Alfakim -- talk 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Useful script

You can use delaid (which works on Firefox and monobook, and probably other configurations too) to help you clear out this category. r3m0t ^talk 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Man, this script rocks! Not sure how people who reading the logs will like it, though. I usually like to put something in the edit summary to justify the deletion. howch e ng {chat} 06:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed! By default, alt-clicking will prompt for a reason, but you can set it to always prompt, or to prompt unless you alt-click. :) r3m0t ^talk 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell's orphan report

Just though I'd mention that it's back up, for those of you who have gotten used to it beeing down and stopped checking :) --Sherool (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Db-notagsupplied

I had no clue this existed. Is there a page where there is some discussion about the use of this template? It says it's currently a test, but I have a few questions. Thanks. --Zsinj^Talk 04:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Endorsed candidates for speedy deletion

Did anyone see a statement about this and the asociated change in 'See also'? I was tempted to speedy delete, but decided to check here first? Speedy deletes don't require endorsements. They simply need to meet one of the conditions, multiple users supporting does not change that fact. Vegaswikian 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Err, WTF? Talk to User:King of Hearts, I guess, since he created it. The category description page doesn't reference any proposed policy or process, but uses proposal-like language. android 79 20:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's necessary. Delete? Gflor e s^Talk 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Note on Bob (Weird Al Yankovic song)

I listed the above article for CSD G4, but the template doesn't link the the AFD discussions. It can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob (Weird Al Yankovic song) (2nd nomination). Mikker ^(...) 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Timeframe for backlogs

Just how long should a CSD (criterion for speedy deletion) be listed under CAT:CSD before there is considered a "backlog." I've seen maybe 30 items here and there be considered a backlog, while I've seen other editors see 50 and consider it next to nothing. Now, I can understand if there are 100 things that are tagged for CSD, but is there a certain threshold between normal operations and the creation of a backlog? Thanks. --Zsinj^Talk 07:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This may not be the most helpful answer, but I'd consider it a backlog if there are still items left after you have done as many of them as you are willing to do at the momement. If there are more left, then add the backlog tag, otherwise, don't. If you are not willing to do any, don't add the tag, individually find someone who will do some(i.e. on IRC, or via WP:AN, etc...), and will then add the tag if they don't finish... Hope this helps... JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't delete any articles, but I still check this page to see how things are. Generally, I'll put the backlog tag on if there are more than 50 items total and take it off if there are less then 20. Timrem 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, regular editors can help by closing old discussions and listing the work to be done at the correct section of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working on the main article. Anyone can update articles to delete or rename the category they use. Once everything is done, list the category in the to be deleted section which I believe is the only part that an admin actually needs to do. Vegaswikian 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Yea, switched areas without noticing. Sorry. Vegaswikian 20:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A second point about the backlog. It is not just the items listed. The Closing in progress: section currently has 5 days of discussions to be processed. In my opinion, anything here says there is a backlog. Vegaswikian 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Are you talking about "Candidates for speedy deletion", or something else? Timrem 19:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he's talking about WP:CFD, not sure why. --Rory096 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Character redirects

I reverted a bunch of these, since they don't qualify under WP:CSD. Plus, there's an entire Category for language redirects. — Deckill e r 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A request

For last few days, I have been concentrating on this category, and have deleted a number of entries recommended for deletion. However, I sometimes found entries not suitable under speedy deletion nominated for speedy deletion. While I understand that it is a matter of personal perception, I request editors to please nominate entries for AfD if they are not very familiar with the topic and the contents. --Bhadani 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am repeating my request in the context of the page: Llangain. The editors placing the speedy deletion tag are requested to probe a little deeper. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well with that article, it was probably best if it was started fresh anyway... It was very clearly a speedy candidate, and any fixing of it, while possible, wouldn't take anything from the old version anyway, and so wasn't a reason to keep the original attack page. --Rory096 07:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Prod should be used if it is not likely to be contested. Many admins have removed the speedy tags and replaced them with a prod or AfD notice. In some cases, they have even edited the article to fix problems. Just because an article is nominated does not mean it is a valid nomination. Vegaswikian 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, in general, and also emphasize the userfulness of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion; I often turn speedies into prods. When I find a particularly unsuitable speedy tag (or actual deletion), especially one in which the issue is non-notability, I point it out to the editor who placed the tag (or did the deletion) so they can improve in the future. Finally, I note that {{db-attack}} was quite appropriate for Llangain at the time it was added; nothing would have been lost by deleting it and staring it afresh, although of course it's also in fine shape now. -- SCZenz 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

user talk pages

Wait a second.. why are all these user talk pages listed for deletion? --F a ng Aili ^talk 14:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A vandal with an AOL IP added the speedy deletion category to the sockpuppet and AOL templates. I've removed it from one, and someone else removed the other. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Japnese Spider Crab

Hi, could I please bring this redirect up to your attention? I'm very tired, so I can't learn the protocol for speedy deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.186.250 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Category Header Information

This category has a large ammount of informational text, links, and summaries on the category. I just reverted Omniplex's removal of all of this, as I find it useful. Admins working CSD seem to often use this page as a CSD Portal, and this information is helpful to myself, and at least everyone else who helped create it. I'm not going to edit war over this, but think that gaining a consensus to it's usefulness may be good before deleting it. Please comment here: — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that, it renders the category page useless. WP:HIDE is rejected, it's not supported by several browsers. The presented info is redundant, in parts wrong confusing articles with pages, deletion templates with speedy deletion templates, and propagating a dubious C: shortcut in addition to the established CAT:. Category pages are sets of pages, not essays or guidelines replacing the real policy. A category page requiring to scroll until its actual content begins, with sections and what else, is wrong. See also above wrt "too long". -- Omniplex 22:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the C:CSD not being needed, and just voiced a delete in the redirects for deletion debate on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it renders the page useless, I use it as is alomst everytime I'm on. Additionaly, most of the category header info has been here all year, and the page still gets use. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:HIDE works for most users, they can disable the essay^Wintro if they hate it, in three different ways (1st part, 2nd part, both parts). WP:HIDE is cute where it works. -- Omniplex 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just restored the subcategories section, rather then list those pages as subcategories (which they are), as it often confuses them with actual categories that are csd's. (They will show in their own area naturally now). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. It also allows to link or bookmark CAT:CSD#Subcategories directly, skipping the intro without CSS. -- Omniplex 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who originally put in the quick reference (I also made delaid along these lines) and added the divs which allow you to hide various sections. I disagree that WP:HIDE is unacceptable. Almost every browser in use is supported and the penalty for using an unsupported browser is low (especially compared to the penalty of not using a helper such as delaid! ;). The reference is meant to be handy and not a complete summary of the criteria, for obvious reasons. I just intended it to be something to flick back to (on the first tab, say) when writing a CSD tag or deletion summary. According to xaosflux, it is useful for that. If anybody thinks otherwise, they can use WP:HIDE. I think it is unacceptable for somebody not to use Firefox/IE5+/Mozilla/Konquerer/Safari/Camino/Flock/Maxthon and then complain they aren't accounted for. r3m0t ^talk 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care, because I just scroll past it. In fact, feel free to use WP:HIDE to hide this comment :P Stifle (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, I do think that if I were, the header would likely serve a purpose. Maybe not after a long time, but in the earlier part of adminship. So, I think it's just fine. (By the way, I sometimes simply scroll down when I'm just looking inside category or otherwise don't need it at that particular moment, so I will remain neutral on the WP:HIDE part.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

When you wrote "I think it is unacceptable for somebody not to use"..."and then complain they aren't accounted for", was that an offer to sponsor the upgrade of RAM and harddisk space on my box, which would allow me to install something better than <shudder>NS 4.x</>? If it hits less than one of 10,000 systems that would be still a considerable number, WP:HIDE was rejected for valid reasons. -- Omniplex 05:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Per xaosflux's request on my talk page to comment here, I also generally support the (very large) header, and also find the C:CSD shortcut non-good. If Omniplex(or anyone) would like to specifically justify selected removals, I'd be happy to consider them. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The part about five similar categories is another distraction from the following relevant content. If those categories are related, why not simply create a category for CAT:CSD plus these five categories?

It's a general complaint, folks tend to spam lead sections with navigation boxes, instruction creep, images, and what else, forcing potentially interested readers to scroll many lines of unrelated "where do you want to go from here" info before actually seeing the first word of the content.

It should be the other way around, first the content or at least lead section + ToC, then links to other more or less related pages for those who found that they arrived at the wrong place.

Admittedly categories are different, no chance to add a "see also" section at the end. But maybe one link to Category:Administrative backlog would be better than five links to similar categories. -- Omniplex 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget this is not a normal category, it is not a palce where our readers are going to look for more interesting articles, its sole purpose is to queue deletion nominations by editors for admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed modification to process.

All members are invited provide comments on a proposal that may modify the current CfD process. The proposal is posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia jurors. Folajimi 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong page here. -- SCZenz 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

__NOGALLERY

I jsut removed the use of this tag. I find having a gallery on this page is helpful for 2 reasons: It helps identify corrupt/missing as well as obvious attack images; and it sorts the images away from the articles. Even if these are non-free images; having them appear on this page as a method for their correction or deletion seems much more helpful to the project then not displaying them out of a licensing concern (if thats why this was added). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am adding the tag to every category which is displaying thumbnails, per FUC #9. This has been discussed here and here, between some other places. If anyone believes the tag should be removed from another category, please do drop me a line so that I can accumulate the complains and present them to the Fair use page (or post them directly in the Fair use page) to keep the revertion stated and prevent future tag insertions. I believe that, if there is broad consensus, it would be possible to create a list of pages where this tag should never be inserted. -- ReyBrujo 21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply; I certainly understand the fair use requirements' and think that page is a good exception; is there an existing category/template that can be used to tag a apge as a fair-use exemption? (please reply on my talk or at CSD talk) — xaosflux ^Talk 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No category nor template that I know of; the main page consensus must have happened years ago. I believe this could be talked in the Village Pump, where it may receive more feedback. However, I suggest first dropping by the Talk page of the Fair use page, where the idea for the NOGALLERY tag was thought, discussed and/or reported first. I can post a note there with the idea of creating a template, category or list with "candidates" for NOGALLERY exceptions, to later be discussed at the relevant places. -- ReyBrujo 21:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wha?!?!

I just checked this page, and there were zero, yep zero candidates for speedy deletion. Someone must have been busy doing the deletes and we must not be looking hard enough in the mainspace for candidates. ;-) Let's keep up the good work. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

how do i delete articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.5 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 July 2006.

Step one, sign up and create an account. Step two, spend some time editing articles and learning Wikipedia policy. Step three, apply for adminship. Once adminship is given, delete. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tags in images

Hmm...when I pull up the history of images, I cannot see an edit corresponding to a speedy tag being added. Why is that? --HappyCamper 03:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing. Apparently, if there's no fair use rationale provided in the initial edit, it's automatically tagged with {{db-noncom}}. Roy A.A. 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent activity shows that users are uploading "non-commercial-only" images that are not allowed. Images that are "non-commercial-only" have this message:

Do you know why these images keep showing with the db-noncom template? These images violate the image use policy! I think the IPs/users who uploaded these files should be blocked for images due to policy violations. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The way this works is that when someone selects "I have permission to use this image" or "This image is licensed for non-commercial/educational use", the image gets listed for speedy deletion immediately, with a message for the uploader not to upload the material again.

The selection is intended as a trap for uninformed users, instead of them slapping a PD tag on it ("I found it on a public website, so it's in the public domain"), see MediaWiki talk:Licenses, and as such it would not be helpful to block users who upload this type of image unless they do it over and over again. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a grace period before the deletions can take place? --HappyCamper 12:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Recently deleted

Hi. I'm not an admin, but I created a framework on the top of this talk page which lists recently deleted articles.

You have to add nominated entries by hand, but as soon as an admin deletes the page it automagically appears in red above. Is this cool, or what?! --Uncle Ed 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The markup was interesting, but by the time I found it all the links were already deleted....hmm maybey they weren't, but I removed all of them to clear the reds, if there were nodisplay's I must have removed them as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Tons of errors showing up

A redirect being used in someone's sig (redirecting to his old sig page) was marked as speedy for being a broken redirect. They didn't put it in a noinclude, and it made everywhere he'd signed show up on this list. I finally found the original source, and deleted it, so now there aren't speedy tags all over, but the places are still on this list. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a bot that runs to clean these up. Did a quick search and did not find it. If I'm right these will be fixed in the next hour or so. If you are concerned, you can do a null edit. Vegaswikian 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's no bot, though marudubshinki briefly did it with a bot. I usually do it, though others try to help sometimes (and that's when mistakes like this are made). --Rory096 07:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Pages that don't appear on CAT:CSD were cleared out. -- ADNghiem501 07:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

--xluavirus talking

my lua virus page is a candadate for a reason unknown to me, may i please know the reason?

Images

Would it be feasable for images to be put into a subcategory? They are kind of distracting (in screen spoace and bandwidth use) for those of us just loading this page to handle article/userspace speedy deletions. --W.marsh 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Images are CSD candidates too, what we need is for more admins to help out deleting / delisting them as aproprate, not hiding them away in some subcat because they are "distracting". It's not rocket sience, either the image fit a speedy deletion criterea or it doesn't, and if someone screw up we undelete images now so no big loss. As for the thumbnails: Well there is the __NOGALLERY__ tag, not sure what the consensus is on using it here though. --Sherool (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine and well but I'm just interested in handling article CSDs. Seperate categories just make sense... I would think it would make it easier to do images if you didn't have to scroll through potentially 50+ article listings to get to the images. --W.marsh 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, think its easier with them not thumnailed. But what would be really helpful is if a few more people just threw in a hand deleting a few each.... --Robdurbar 10:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just asked a user who has tagged many images now on commons with a speedy tag to please stop doing so. They may be speedily deletable, but putting them in the category here just delays the deletion of the more urgent speedy candidates. Kusma (討論) 11:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the nogallery on here, but it seems that if we are goign to count all of the image subcats for orphans/no copyright/etc, this page will be endlessly backloged, do they really belong here? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

List of speedily deleted articles?

Is there a way for me to view a chronological list of articles that were speedily deleted in the recent past?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Check Special:Log/delete, pretty much everyting that does not mention a deletion debate or simmilar process in the summary is a speedy deletion. --Sherool (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image talk pages

Please make sure if you speedy delete an image you also check to see if the image has a talk page, and speedy that as well. I've encountered about a dozen image talk pages with no image page just looking at the 100 most recent changes to image talk pages. VegaDark 10:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Backlog

People seem to have wildly differing opinions on what counts as backlog to this page. Can we all agree on a specific number of articles/images/both, at which point we'd consider CAT:CSD backlogged? -- Steel 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO 50 - 100 is acceptable, as 200 is not a backlog, but a major problem. feydey 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who upped it to 200 articles/images [2], though looking back that's way too high. Though I don't think it should be too low else this page will be permanently tagged with the backlog notice which defeats the entire purpose of it. -- Steel 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think 100 is good, BUT, I think Images shouldn't be counted or included HERE unless they are attack/obvious flaw images. The other speedyable images (miriad of licensing issues) should have their own page. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with 50, the number that was accepted for a very long time. If that means that there will permanently be a backlog tag here, that's a problem with the articles not being deleted, not the definition of a backlog. You don't fix that by changing the amount of articles needed for a backlog, you fix it by promoting more admins or finding more existing admins to clear the backlogs. Is this really how we want to deal with our problems now? Just change the definition of a problem so it's no longer one? --Rory096 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of the backlog tag is to attract the attention of admins who wouldn't normally have noticed/done anything about it. Having the page permanently tagged as backlogged defeats the whole purpose of the tag. On a tangent, I wouldn't really consider 50 a backlog. That's just my opinion though. -- Steel 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, which is why the page shouldn't permanently be tagged as backlog. That doesn't mean, however, that we should up our standards when the amount of work to be done increases, it means we have to work harder. --Rory096 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing

This thread was moved[3] from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship because it's more appropriate here.

Simultaneously sent to wikiEN-l

I just saw the current message above the backlog tag at CAT:CSD. It reads:

When did it become acceptable to have 100 articles or 200 total things in CAT:CSD? Since we now have backlogs more often, that means we should raise the criteria for what is actually a backlog? Is this why we're unnecessarily raising our standards on RfA, because if we don't have as many "backlogs," but still have just as many pages waiting to be processed, then we don't need as many admins? This is appalling. We might as well stop promoting admins and just delete the backlog tag, then we wouldn't have any "backlogs" and nobody would have to do anything! Wouldn't that be nice? Ugh. This is just silly. We need to stop dicking around and start actually being productive. We're here to run an encyclopaedia, not pretend we're doing so and accomplishing absolutely nothing. --Rory096 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor are we here to inflate our self-importance by thinking it's clever to oppose people on RfA. — Werdna talk criticism 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting more admins is always good. I encourage both of you to find a suitable candidate and nominate him or her - and encourage your friends to do likewise. (unfortunately the last person I wanted to nominate declined because he thought he hadn't done enough vandalfighting to not get voted down; I'm looking for others atm). >Radiant< 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am hard-pressed to find somebody willing to go through the chinese water torture that is RfA on english Wikipedia at the moment. Let alone somebody who'll actually pass the damn thing. — Werdna talk criticism 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we all stop acting as though the sky is falling. Thanks. -- Steel 14:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been through worse, and been through it before. I'd be mighty useful during the day on these backlogs, but I don't stand a chance in hell of promotion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It is better to light a candle. I've found a second person to nominate, I hope s/he'll accept. >Radiant< 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Then you're simply not trying hard enough. At this moment, there are 14 people and one bot trying to gain adminship. So the suggestions that noone is willing to try RfA are patent exaggeration. -Splash - tk 18:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

15 people (and 1 bot) on the RFA main page doesn't mean that they will all pass. — Moe 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly not what Werdna said, though. -Splash - tk 15:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Just a thing non-admins could do, if they're interested in helping out and showing that they will work on admin backlogs: Go through old AFDs that haven't been closed yet, find ones with few or no comments where you think a closer isn't going to be comfortable making a decision yet, and relist them on today's AfD page (make sure to remove them from the old AfD page). This doesn't require you to be an admin, and it's something that admins will eventually do anyway with many of these AfDs, so if you do it first, they can spend more time actually closing AfDs. Also, closing consensus keeps and merges is something any uninvolved Wikipedian can do if they want, and those are a bit more time consuming to close than simple deletes.

My point here is that it's regrettable that RfA is such a nightmare for some people, but I think some candidates can get over the hump if they show they clearly are cut out to be admins by doing admin-like work. Of course this is not the only thing non-admins can do to show they're cut out to be admins (I think I'm on the record supporting all the non-admins in this thread), but for others it's a good way to help out.

I bring this up because there's currently a huge backlog in closing old AfDs, which I'm working on, but it's really beyond what any one person can realistically deal with at this point. --W.marsh 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, a backlog on AFDs isn't really going to be resolved by relisting AFDs. >Radiant< 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but they need to be relisted (some never get any comments in their initial 5 days). Relisting is something admins end up doing if no one else does, and it's a time-consuming process, eating up time admins could spend actually closing AfDs. I thought this was clear in my initial post. --W.marsh 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are some AfDs that simply cannot be closed properly without first relisting them. I did the best I could with September 25 but I simply don't have the time it would take to close this last monster. I don't think what we need to help conquer the AfD backlog is more admins to close AfDs: what we need are more admins who are willing to close contentious AfDs. I was just as guilty: after feeling that I was hung out to dry in a single DRV, I took a break from closing contentious AfDs to reduce my Wikistress. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. But the fact remains: we have plenty of good, experienced admin volunteers who are willing to close AfDs (and they close many of them!), but not enough who are willing to close difficult and contentious AfDs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is something I've considered for the future. I just wasn't ready to ask if it would be OK for me to do so. I guess I'm afraid of making a mistake that would hurt me in the future. Like others, I would only want to do things that I would get my head lopped off. Perhaps, we need to remeber we are all volunteers, we all have feelings, and we all sometimes need to release stress in a way that others don't need to experience.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, closing contentious AfDs can be pretty stressful when you encounter people who have a vested interest in the article being kept in its whole form (or want to see it deleted). I suppose that's why there aren't a whole lot of people doing it (and why I quit doing it for a while). Heck, I even came up with a ratio about it. :-) But it would be a really nice thing if we have some thick-skinned admins who are willing to take the flak and close these AfDs, because seeing the eight day backlog was what convinced me that I should return to closing contentious AfDs, even though, to be honest, I didn't really want to do it that much. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick reference (I8 & I9)

The quick reference lists "I8: Attack Images" and "I9: Identical on Commons" while there is no longer an I9 at WP:CSD. We should probably change one or the other so they coincide. Why didn't we leave I8 as (This criterion has been superseded by G10 and is kept for historical reasons.) and keep I9 at I9, as we did with A6? Hope this makes sense, DVD+ R/W 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you salt a page?

So it won't be recreated? Looks like this one might need it Santo Calarco. I'm a new admin helping out here and I know it's possible to do, just can't find instructions. --plange 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you figured it out. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, User:Blnguyen notified me on my Talk page :-) Just so I make sure I'm doing things right, was I right to salt that page? --plange 04:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was right. Also, it would help if every time a page is salted a few old ones were removed (See Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages#Administrators), but that's not obligatory. —Centrx→talk • 05:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is my newly uploaded image listed here?

Hi, I just uploaded an image for the article on Georgi Gladyshev and I see that it is at speedy deletion. What is the point of allowing me to upload it? What is the correct way to upload a photo for an article of a noted person who is still alive, i.e. when the photo is not more than 100 years old? --Sadi Carnot 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged it appropriately. It would be best to get him to agree to release the picture under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), or similar license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses). —Centrx→talk • 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you, I will go that route next time. Also, does this mean that the person has to agree to the following:

Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document

under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;

with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU

Free Documentation License".

Or, what exactly (in words) do they have to agree to? --Sadi Carnot 02:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They have to agree to license it under the "GNU Free Documentation License", and they should understand generally what that means, so link them to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html. See also Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. —Centrx→talk • 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 13:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Images no longer displayed?

Up until yesterday or today, the images here in CAT:CSD showed up as thumbnails, below the alphabetical list of other pages. Now they're mixed in the alphabetical list, with some under "I" (for "Image:") and some under "?". This makes it a little more difficult to deal with the speedy image backlog. Image file names aren't very useful indicators of the content, and I know some editors/admins "specialize" in investigating and processing certain types of images (celebrity publicity photos, sports photos, etc.). The large number of images also clutters the non-image page list. Can the thumbnails be restored, please? Thanks, --MCB 07:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for it was because page loading was horrendous when the image backlog was large. I tend to think it should stay this way, but if there is some good reason to be able to see the thumbnails before going to the page...? —Centrx→talk • 08:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the thumbnails are very useful, but I agree that page load times were getting pretty long. On the other hand, when processing stuff here I don't reload the page very often. Occasionally that means something was already deleted or removed from the cat by the time I click on it, but that's not a big deal. --MCB 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All the images sorted under "�" (𘚟) are stuff tagged with {{db-noncom}}, usualy by the uploaders themselves by picking a "wrong" license from the upload list. The ones under "I" for image are tagged using various other deletion templates (typicaly corupt images, vandal stuff or redundant images). Not having the thumbnails actualy makes this destinction easier to see. Though the thumbnails do have some benefits too, especialy if you "specialise" on deleting corrupt images or fixing logos and cover art mistakedly uploaded as "non-commercial only" or whatever. --Sherool (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The segregation of the {{db-noncom}} items is in fact useful -- but I guess you have to know why they're sorted that way... perhaps a notation on the category page would be helpful. Personally, I think the existence of the noncom license choice itself is a bad idea, and would prefer to see it removed from the list of licenses. What possible good can it do to permit the user to choose a license that will result in speedy deletion of the image they uploaded? But I guess there's a place for that debate rather than here. (I've seen it, but not sure where.) --MCB 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with the by-permission and non-commercial images showing up here, either (perhaps they should go in a subcategory?), but the situation is much, much better than the pick-a-license roulette we saw before they were put into place. You wouldn't believe the number or type of images that showed up in Category:GPL images when {{GPL}} was the default choice. —Cryptic 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed

I have speedied quite a few pages today. Since this is the first time I am doing it, can someone please review some of my deletes and let me know if I should be doing something differently -- Lost^(talk) 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have time to look through them more carefully later on today, but two things jump out at me from glancing through the logs (and are sufficiently general enough that I'm posting them here rather than your talk page, which is really where this belongs): copyvio deletions should name the site or source they're infringing (so non-admins can see that it's not a public domain or GFDL source or a mirror), and libellous material from attack pages and the like should be blanked from the deletion summary. —Cryptic 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted and will do so going ahead. Thanks -- Lost^(talk) 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

NOGALLERY again

Ehem... the category is already included in the exceptions... any reason people add/remove it? Speed issues, maybe? -- ReyBrujo 01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When there are lots of images listed, people who have slow connections have a hard time loading the page. on the flip side, having a gallery is useful to spot obvious vandalism. So when this is heavily backlogged it is usually removed, and when it is not the gallery stays, hence the frequency of adding and removing the code. VegaDark 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds like a wise thing to do. enochlau (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Removed

What should one do if a speedy delete added to a page is removed by the person who created the page. This happened with Katti.
Markco1 03:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Put the Template:Drmspeedy series of warnings on their talk page, and report them on WP:AIV if they contine past the last warning. VegaDark 04:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This one got missed over a month ago

Hi there, hate to be a pest but not quite sure how to correct this situation. I speedy-tagged Jack ramond samuel evans back on October 22, and it has not been dealt with one way or the other. Given the content (reads like a schoolboy prank on a classmate), it would probably be good to clean this one out. Thanks. Risker 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, but it didn't show up in the category. Cheers. Lectonar 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How to list?

This doesn't say anything about how to list candidates for speedy deletion. Is this even the right place? Here, someone just delete this junk please, Jake Nickless. It doesn't even deserve one of the tags. KP Botany 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding any deletion tag, such as {{d}}, to an article will list it here automatically. Usually, though, you would use {{db|YOUR REASON HERE}} to explain why it should be deleted. timrem 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't really say that anywhere, that that's what you do, just add the template to the article. KP Botany 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

howto contest

If one is not an admin, and one wishes to contest a speedy deletion of a page not your own, how should this be done? (for that matter, if one was the author, and it is still taged after "hangon" & you wish to contest it, what is the proceedure?) DGG 05:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you just add a tag for speedy deletion (listed towards the bottom of this page Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion), with your reason for the request, see my question above. I'm not sure. Wikipedia pages are bad about instructions for people who don't already know how to do something. KP Botany 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are not the one who created the page and it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, you can remove the tag, leaving an edit summary explaining why you are doing so. If you are the one who created the page, do not remove the tag. Instead, add {{hangon}} below the speedy tag, then explain on the article's talk page why you believe the article should not be deleted. After this, an admin will review the circumstances and decide if the article does or does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. timrem 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Overly Agressive Speedy Deletes

A number of speedy deletes have been done recently on pages being creates as part of the List of years in poetry. The deletes included one page with a hangon note and reference to a discussion on the topic, and cost the better part of a morning's worth of effort. Please, do not delete these - each year takes significant work to create and substantial work is being done by multiple people to build the list. Does anyone know if there is a way to restore these? Sam 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that these were also deleted without notice to me as the creator of the pages - one should always provide a note to the page creator. Sam 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You can request an undelete at Wikipedia:Deletion review. It sounds to me like someone was unduly zealous. D e nni ^talk 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That page has plenty of redlinks. Can you give some examples of pages which were speedy deleted? --TheParanoidOne 11:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One deleted and now restored was 1130 in poetry - I believe I have now restored the deleted ones. (I was working mostly on the 9th century in poetry yesterday; you'll see most of the work to date has gone into the 20th century in poetry, which is quite well populated. Unfortunately, I have no way to be sure I've replicated all the work. Sam 12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User pages

I see a half dozen user pages in this cat, but when I visit them they have no speedy tag and ain't in any cats. What the heck is going on here? ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This happens when a template or other transcluded page changes categories - the category pages won't be updated until the transcluding page is edited. Null edit them and they go away. —Cryptic 23:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Purging them should work as well. (click link on how-to) --MECU≈talk 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

time at SD

How long should an article be listed at SD before it is deleted? What is the practice or custom?DGG 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They can be deleted immediately — that's why they're "speedy". Tyrenius 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no time limit. In practice it is based on the number of entries and if an administrator is working there. If I'm cleaning out everything under the letter S and a new one appears, if could be deleted in seconds. If the category has a lot of entries it could takes many hours. The practice is to delete on sight if the administrator agrees with the classification. In some cases an administrator may take another action like; PROD, AfD, removal of the template, or leaving for an administrator who is more qualified to pass judgment. Vegaswikian 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Speedy Deletion

This is exactly the words of the person in charge of the website where I obtained the picture:

"You may use the picture of the church and you may reference the link to the Formosa page of our website if you wish."

I think I probably put the wrong license on it. It's uploaded now, how can I fix the license so the picture won't be deleted? JimmmyThePiep 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You can get help here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Tyrenius 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

H&L images

What's with these, I keep deleting and they keep coming back. The page they link to appears to have a history with a different name. Certainly acting like a hydra, and I don't have the tech skills to sort it. jimfbleak 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Law & Order episodes

Admins -- please don't delete these. I will edit them all to remove the copyvios from the plot summaries. NawlinWiki 13:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

I've read everything I can regarding the policy for deletion of talk pages. I'm curious what people who haven't recently read the policies think those policies are? I think I'm seeing a large gap between how they are being interpreted, and how they are defined. Mathiastck 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparent glitched page listed for speedy deletion

Talk:Mom Slides Down the Chimney is a talk page with no associated article, but the text of the page is that of an article. It has no history and no log. Something's up there, and while the article is lacking context, it's not bad enough to be a speedy-delete candidate on its merits. ShaleZero 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as G1 and G8, and possibly A1. The article makes absolutely no sense, and it's in the wrong place (it does have a history, it was just created in talk namespace). No glitch. --Core desat 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

??

To the masses: what do you make of Sammy t3h Snake and Sammy the Snake? --Fang Aili ^talk 15:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Subcategory for A7

Any objections to a seperate subcategory for CSDA7 articles. I really like the subcategories (too bad it's needed though), and since quite a lot are tagged for A7 it would be practical. Garion96 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Personaly I don't see a problem with having a subcat for every criterea. However make sure the articles still also appear in the main cat, a lot of people prefeer to have everyting in one place rater than having to check multiple categories. --Sherool (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like more subcats. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just made it and added it to some templates. Need to check if I got them all. The articles will still appear in the main cat. Garion96 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin privileges

hiyas. I've been an admin for some time, but I've never been quite clear on whether or not I should nominate speedy deletions, or simply do it myself. Historical revisionism (Japan) was nominated for deletion over a year ago, and the consensus was to delete. It has since be re-created, and contains no content of value. In this case, and in future, may I simply delete things that fulfill speedy deletion criteria, or should I nom it so that an admin who's more objective on the matter, more removed, can process it? Thank you. LordAmeth 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is a clear case of meting the criteria, then feel free to delete it. If you want someone else to look at it in case you might be wrong then nominate it. Vegaswikian 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Over 200 pages waiting to be deleted!!

Is there some sort of {{Super admin backlog}} tag that I could hit this page with (: VectorPotential^Talk 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Now there is one... :) I thought in those cases it was customary to simply commence some serious nagging at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Femto 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, sometimes I think we might need one of those, especially when there are over 300 articles waiting in here... – Riana ^ঋ 06:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Split off images?

Is it time to split off all of the image nominations to a separate category? Most of the introduction on the pages is taken up with list of image deleting related lists. Then there is the images themselves. Vegaswikian 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's time for some more admins to help clear out the backlog of images. The categories are on this page for a very good reason: so they don't get forgotten. There are literally hundreds of images that have been awaiting so-called "speedy" deletion for several weeks. If more people would help delete them, the "Images/Proposed deletion" section of this page would be greatly reduced. —An gr 09:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, with so many admins around, I'm surprised that a lot more don't seem to want to do the grunt work. Maybe it's because doing the images requires a little more knowledge of how things work - in particular, fair use and the plethora of image copyright tags. enochlau (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's that, there's also the fact that deleting images means you have to remove red links from the articles where they were used (which is incredibly time-consuming, but you'll get yelled at if you don't do it), and there's the fact that deleting images means dealing with the onslaught of "Why did you delete my image?" messages on your talk page. It's a thankless job. —An gr 06:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There are are things like WP:NPW that can help with the redlink issue. It's not streamlined for image deletion, but it works ok most of the time (some infoboxes still cause problems). Maybe we should consider improving the "admin howto" on image deletions. It does seem to be a problem that many admins seem to consider image deletion to be something complicated and scary. Most of it is actualy pretty stright forward, does it have a source? If no then delete etc. (allowing for some common sense in cases where the source is obvious and should just be inserted instead of deleting it). --Sherool (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Drop-boxes

I made drop-boxes for the various image subcategories to reduce the clutter. Hope people like it. Mango juice^talk 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. Thank you. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, big improvement thanks --BozMo talk 19:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it =) Thanks. enochlau (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

right category

A7 is being used for short nonsense pages for which G1 or G2 could more appropriately be used, and it makes it somewhat harder to sort usefully.DGG 09:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just drop a message off to those people who are tagging them then... they may be new at it, and might want some guidance. It definitely won't be administrators who are doing it wrong though, because admins would just zap it without tagging it =) enochlau (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog tag

Why are certain admins so hellbent on leaving the backlog tag uncommented, even when there are less than 10 pages displayed on this category? Apparently it's due to the dated deletion categories... since when? Did we agree on this or something? Why the hell would we care about something entirely unrelated to CSD? —Pilot guy (go around) 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "entirely unrelated to CSD"? Those dated deletion categories contain hundreds -- by now, possibly thousands -- of images that need to be deleted right now. They are all speedy deletion candidates, no less so for being in lower categories than CAT:CSD, and no less so for having been speedy deletion candidates for more than two weeks. If the "backlog" tag bothers you, help get rid of it by clearing the backlog of images awaiting deletion. —An gr 05:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the tag is obviously causing all the admins to rush over here and clear out ALL THOSE IMAGES! Besides, those categories already have their own backlog tags, do they not? So what's the point? No one gives a flying fuck about them anyway. Why not use the tag for its intended purpose, which is to show when there is a backlog in this category, rather than unnecessarily leave it up when no one agreed to do that in the first place? —Pilot guy (go around) 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was helping with one of the more atrocious image baklogs, I'll get back on it soon hopefully. I agree with Pilotguy, there should be a backlog tag here when there's a backlog here. Those other places have their own backlog tags. Grand master ka 01:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't "other places". Those are part of "here", because they are all candidates for speedy deletion. They belong in this category, and as long as they haven't been deleted, this category has a backlog. —An gr 06:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are naive, but whatever. I have removed the backlog tag. As a responsible admin you should refrain from re-instating it prematurely when as you see there is no consensus to do that. —Pilot guy (go around) 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Naive". For saying that there is an enormous backlog of images awaiting speedy deletion when there is one. You as a "responsible" admin should not remove the backlog tag just because you "don't give a fuck" about images. —An gr 11:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better if the backlog tag is not here, but on the specific image categories. That way, the attention of the hypothetical admin who checks for the backlog tag is drawn to the images instead of the general CSD category when the latter is not backlogged by itself. I think putting the backlog tag here because other categories (that happen to be linked form here) are backlogged is actually counterproductive. Kusma (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez, Angr, stop being so immediatist. Wikipedia will not fail simply because a few items that perhaps should be deleted aren't immediately deleted. There is no need to create so much drama over such a minor thing. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I see a need to remove the articles as quickly as possible since the longer they exist, the more likely they are to be copied to a shadow and remain there forever. Then we have garbage articles out in several places, that are no longer on wikipedia but do exist in other places with an attribution back to us. I don't believe that the images are as likely to be copied unless they are included in an article. Vegaswikian 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of images tagged for deletion are copyright violations. Keeping them here puts Wikimedia in legal jeopardy. Deleting them is much, much more important than deleting the "Joe Blow is a really kewl guy!!11! LOL!" kind of article that gets listed here. —An gr 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the backlog tag should definitely be on the individual categories instead of here. Why draw admins to C:CSD where they'll work on deleting "Joe Blow is a really kewl guy!!11! LOL!" articles when they should be deleting images found in separate categories? timrem 19:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

When those image categories were added, I seem to recall comments about being able to use a bot to delete them and not needing admins to do extra work. Why can't we use a bot? Do administrators need to remove the redlinks left behind? Vegaswikian 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No we can't have a bot automaticaly delete everyting simply because someone added a scertain template to it. We need a human to check to make sure the image actualy meet a deletion criterea just as much as we need to for articles. With the possible exception of orphanded fair use images (would be fairly easy to automate a a check that a) Image is tagged as fair use b) has been tagged as orphanded for 7 days. c) Does not have any incoming links). Not that such a bot would be likely to be approved anyway, there is a deep seated fear of bots with admin tools. --Sherool (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggestion was for a bot to remove red links after the image has been deleted, not to have a bot delete the images. —An gr 04:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on a side note, in my experience with the no-fair-use-rationale backlog, most of the images I found during my time there could be kept and be perfectly acceptable, if someone had taken a few seconds to write a fair use rationale. (I ended up writing quite a few of them.) I have a feeling there might possibly be a way to coax people to learn more about fair use images before uploading them, so we don't have such a backlog... Grand master ka 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Cracker (pejorative) copied to Cracker (white)

(I moved this from Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut and paste moves where I had originally posted it.) The article Cracker (pejorative) was copied to Cracker (white) by User:Ray led the way without any explanation or talk. I tagged it with {{db-histmerge|Cracker (pejorative)}}. The tag was subsequently removed by users Uncle Otama and Otama's Dream, who based on user name and creation 15 minutes apart, are almost certain sock puppets, I suspect of Ray led the way. The attention of an administrator is requested please. Thanks. - Dan D. Ric 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the fork and redirected it to Cracker (pejorative). —An gr 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

NOGALLERY warring

Regarding the frequent addition and removal of __NOGALLERY__... note that you can go back in history and view the other version, and get it to show up exactly the way you like, so it's not really necessary to flip it back and forth. --Interiot 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of relevance to those who do image speedy deletions

The title says it all, really. See here. Picaroon 19:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page listed here?

Talk:8 Foot Sativa is listed in this category, but I can't figure out why. I've looked to see if a template it's using is causing it, but some of the templates it lists as using don't appear to even be used on the page. Any ideas? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorization bug?

Anybody know what gives with Image:P1020541.JPG or Image:Crys5.JPG (or a few others I noticed)? They have speedy delete (redundant) tags on them, and on their description pages they claim to be members of the appropriate delete categories, but they don't actually seem to be in the categories when I look at the listings. Yes, I tried to purge, but maybe didn't do it right? Staecker 12:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I'm not sure, but it may have to do with Template:Db-redundantimage, if someone wants to take a look. VegaDark 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy-ing

I have been going through User:AlexNewArtBot/BadSearchResult and creating quite a few speedy notices. If anyone finds I am being overly broad, or using the wrong notices, please fill me in, Thanks! -Ravedave 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems in User Request section

Many album entries have been listed in this section. But when I visited these pages, nothing seems to have speedy deletion on them. No categories, no templates tagged or any other transcluded page in them tagged for deletion (which is common cause for this kind of issue). Aquarius  talk 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, problem was pointed out in WP:AN. A anon placed db-author on {{Infobox Album}} Aquarius  talk 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Careless speedy of the year

So far, at any rate. Suggestions for other candidates welcome.

deleted as (no citations or references and no claim to notability). Medical scientist. As the article clearly says, Fellow of the Royal Society and OBE. I omit the name of the article to protect the careless. DGG 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why protect the careless? In my opinion these people are nothing better than vandals, who deserve to be hauled over the coals. Rubywine 09:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Because we have to live together, & this is better done by teaching people than by embarrassing them. I did in fact have a productive discussion with the editor involved. DGG 08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Malicious homophobic usage of speedy deletion tag

The user 74.220.207.95 has recently marked a large number of LGBT-related articles for speedy deletion on the grounds that they do not assert importance or significance. In no cases were the tags justified. The contributions of this user consist almost entirely of speedy deletion tags placed on articles about significant LGBT websites. It is blatantly obvious that this individual is motivated by homophobia, so his/her tagging is effectively a form of vandalism. I do not know where else to go to report this misbehaviour, so I am requesting that all future speedy deletion tags placed by 74.220.207.95 be speedily removed! Rubywine 09:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

NOGALLERY on image categories

I'd like to propose the NOGALLERY tag be added to the starter templates for the image subcategories. I've gone and added links to the bad old ones tool in each of these so an admin using that tool will be able to see the image anyways. The NOGALLERY would save bandwidth and speed and since an admin using the tool will see the image there. If you want to see the tool in action, look at Category:Images with unknown source as of 22 June 2007. I think using this tool will speed up deletion since it also displays the image description information and other information (last edited). Anyways, does anyone have a valid reason to display the images in these subcategories? I'm working on getting an image red link delinker to make it easier for admins to delete as well. MECU≈talk 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The bad old ones tool is this? If so, how does it work? If I do it the old fashioned way, I much prefer thumbnails to already give an indication what do to with the image. Garion96 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How about including a prominent link to a prior revision that features galleries? I'm not sure that C:CSD is that huge of a bandwidth hog since only admins regularly use it. And I agree with Garion96: thumbnails make it much easier to prioritize and recognize closely related deletion candidates. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that currenly almost all the speedy deletion image categories are having the nogallery. Admittedly there was no big discussion here, but it doesn't seem that it is agreed that this is handier. I think it's really unpractical. Can it be changed back? I was reverted when I removed the nogallery on a few (I thought I encounteted a mistake on a few but...). Garion96 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag removals

I've tagged Mengal,Asif Mengal with variously {{:db-bio}} and {{db-shoutout}} but they keep being removed. This is getting tedious so could someone please treat them as tagged and take a look? Many thanks. ROGER ^TALK 10:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of fighting about it, why not just AFD them and let it get settled that way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

'Cos I'm very new at this AFD, PROD, CSD etc lark, and it hadn't occurred to me. Thanks, I'll do that. ROGER ^TALK 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. They look like speedy candidates but if someone puts up a fight, just let others get their views in. It takes a while to get all this stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of a lot of User pages

Quite a few User pages are present in CAT:CSD. It appears that Template:hidden-delete-reason has been added to several of these pages; the presence of the user page appears not to be indicated on the page itself, and the presence of the template is in a listing below the edit box when opening the page for editing. Any comments on this? I haven't seen this before, myself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like many of them were the result of deletions regarding User:Cool Cat/CVU2-1 by an admin that didn't check What Links Here too closely. I'm having my bot run a cleanup. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a ton of other User:PickAColorCat pages that are popular are getting deleted causing this problem as well, I've cleaned up a few, restored a few. I don't really care if they get deleted, but What Link's here is there for a reason! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been the topic of a brief discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

missing backlog at Disputed non-free images

The tracker for Category:Disputed non-free images only indicates a 16-day backlog,[4] to July 1st, but there is actually a backlog going back to early June. Does anyone know why those June categories aren't showing up? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the template doesn't work properly if people clear the categories out of order. --Ajm⁸¹ 00:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the template should work just fine if the categories aren't cleared in order, but it only goes back so far in its check. Since there is a backlog going back over the maximum, the template is missing it. It might be a good idea to manually include a link to the oldest backlog category for now. Mango juice^talk 12:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New template:HangonUse

I have several times encounterd cases where users placed a {{hangon}} tag next to a notice of a speedy tagging on their talk pages, rather than on the page tagged for the speedy. I have just drafted {{HangonUse}} as a standard message to users in this situation. Feel free to use it as appropriate. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

LInks to a mess

Apparently many users are now linking to the pages in this category in various kinds of lists. This is making it more difficult for admins to look for real links and see if cleanup of links in other articles is needed. Any suggestions on getting this stopped or is there really some value? Vegaswikian 06:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of candidates for speedy deletion here

I've been cleaning up the punk record labels category, and so far have had at least ten pages speedy deleted.

I imagine there are a plethorea of these here[5]. If anyone is looking to do some speedy deletes this is the place.Hoponpop69 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably get a better response over on WP:AN; when the CSD backlogs get insanely high, that's generally the place to drop a note. I'd help out, but I'm at work. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

g12 speedy applied to images

I just deleted 2 images listed in the general category that were tagged G12. Then I just realized that images have their own set of tags and usually require a 7 day waiting period. In situations such as these, should I have changed the speedy tag to {{untagged}} or {{di-no fair use rationale}} or whatever was applicable? One image was claimed as the author releasing into the public domain, but the image had a website's watermark on it. What would you have done, experienced admins?-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll occasionally apply G12 in cases where the image is clearly copyrighted, but has been "released under a free license", since none of the image speedy deletion apply (I3 is for licenses improper for Wikipedia rather than invalid licensing. It's a questionable use of G12, though - It's worthwhile to check the image's use before using this method, since it might be well-used if converted to fair use. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ineligible Image Talk pages appearing

I'm curious about why a bunch of image talk pages that are tagged as ineligible for speedy deletion have shown up here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This edit is why they are. I have reverted that edit. It looks like the issue has cleared itself and those pages are no longer showing up in this category. Metros 12:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for following up by placing a query on the editor who instituted the change. I had suspected the appearance might have had something to do with an edit to a template, but I didn't have time to follow it up when I placed this comment. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Uneeded deletions

Are we needing to delete so much important articles due to the mods perception of thier importance? I for one started making an article today it was up for deleion 5 seconds later and i wasnt even finished with it. Do these mods have no life or what??? I would really like to know why on earth these articles are "unnessecary", when they involve highly influentual metal music artists that the mods have prob never heard of —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronix (talk • contribs)

Its up to editors to provide independent verifiable sources that bands meet the notability guidelines. Its especially important to do precisely because admins may not have heard of them, and rely on the article to assert notability through independent references. Jimfbleak 10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Equally, it's up to us admins to make sure we're not biting newbies. We were all new once, struggling to understand the policies. I cringe when I remember some early edits. Having an article disappear in a flash is quite dispiriting, especially for newbies. --Dweller 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why userfication of obviously good faith but totally inexperienced new article contributions is a reasonable course to take in some cases. Unfortunately, the general assumption (due to the need for speed) is that new articles that don't measure up are just junk across the board. I'm as guilty as the next admin on this count. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And a friendly message on a newbie's talk page does wonders. --Dweller 09:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh Yes, Dweller is very right. There has been some debate at RFA recently as there is a bot that now advises usersof SD. Personally I'm all up for making sure that anything tagged for speedy is taken to the editors talk page by a real human editor. Very often a new article is an accounts first experience with Wikipedia, and I believe the spirit of WP:BITE should invlolve real editors advising and counseling good faith new members with their work. Pedro | Chat 10:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why (technical) is this tagged for deletion?

The page User:NeilTarrant appears in CAT:SPEEDY, but in looking at the user page I am not seeing where it is so tagged. I'm bringing this up to see if someone else might be able to resolve this question - of whether the page should or should not be here, and if it should not, why is it here? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no longer a problem, I see. I did delete a red-linked folder from the userpage in question, but that should not have been the problem. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Travellers' Club

Please could you delete Travellers' Club ? I moved the article from Travellers Club to Travellers' Club and at an expert's request, have just moved it back to Travellers Club. I can't get to the unnecessary Travellers Club page to nominate it for speedy deletion ! thisisace 00:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why delete that? It is a perfectly acceptable redirect now. The page is here, by the way : ). shoeofdeath 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Help:Moving a page says:

Normally, to undo a move from page A to page B, simply:

move page B back to page A

list page B (now a history-free redirect) on your project's "votes for deletion" (or "speedy deletion") page, or (Admins only) just delete it.

thisisace 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that in this case, Travellers' Club is an alternate way of spelling/searching for the title, and is probably helpful as a redirect. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bad Old Ones Tool"

Is it a good idea to link this tool from all of the image deletion categories? It flags every image as "Not used anywhere!" regardless of whether or not the image is actually in use. I deleted about 10 "orphaned" fair use images before realizing that the thing was lying and that they weren't really orphaned any more. We at least need a warning label. --B 12:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, is User:Magnus Manske aware of the issue? — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Time sort

Has any thought been put into doing some kind of time sort for this category? In other words, articles tagged for a certain length of time would be segregated to different areas. I don't know whether this is feasible with the software, but I can think of several reasons why this would be helpful.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Several users are monitoring the contents. Should be easy to convert this approach to record the time the item was first detected. Then on each update add new items and delete the ones not there. Then sort to display oldest first. Vegaswikian 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion sometimes aren't

Currently, the category is filled with Irish writers who are not and never have been tagged for speedy deletion. I've encountered this in lesser scale before and wondered why it happens. Does anyone know? --Moonriddengirl 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#pages stuck in a category and [6]. —Cryptic 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is currently the case with various leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada. DGG (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Interested

I'm curious to know what is the biggest backlog that CSD has reached before? Phgao 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What amount of CSDs qualifies it to be an admin backlog? Phgao 14:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

From personal observations, a figure of around 50-100 articles and images tends to be the threshold at which the {{adminbacklog}} tag is shown. User:Dragons flight has created a category tracker which provides statistics about those categories. It would usually be updated daily, but unfortunately, circumstances have forced Dragons flight to take a break and so the statistics haven't been updated since August. The mean is around 200 and the standard deviation is around 110, suggesting that 100ish is the threshold at which it starts to become a problem. The highest backlog, as recorded, is 1291 articles, a severe backlog.Harryboyles 07:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I thought yesterday was bad, at about 150 articles! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See the top of WT:SDL ;) Resurgent insurgent 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nearly always a backlog here! I normally get it down very low or sometimes clear but it grows again within minutes. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Last week I waded in when the tally was at 111 articles; three hours of hard work later, it was at 110 articles. <sigh> BTW, well done G-Unit to get it down to zero, even for a moment!! Accounting4Taste 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess its just a question of being glad it wasn't 1291! Still, I think I've only ever seen the category empty twice - and that only lasted a matter of seconds... WjBscribe 02:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1291! Must have been some vandal/nn apeshit going on. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa...

No backlog? Weird... But even weirder is there are currently 0 CSDs!!! Jmlk 1 7 08:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a four-day backlog on Commons images. :( east.718 at 08:36, November 22, 2007

<Eats his foot, now that it's in his mouth>. Jmlk 1 7 08:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have cleared the Commons backlog, so now there are really zero CSDs :) Mushroom (Talk) 09:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NOW it's weird... :) Jmlk 1 7 10:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone take a screenshot! This has to be a pretty rare occurrence ;) Ariel♥Gold 10:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

First time I've ever seen... Jmlk 1 7 10:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Guess all the recent promotiona at WP:RFA have helped out as well. What do I do now? Better go write something I guess :) Pedro : Chat 10:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mushroom, now if anyone doubts, there is proof! (I wonder if this is the first time all areas have been empty?) Ariel♥Gold 11:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good recognition of a lot of hard work. Nice one. Pedro : Chat 11:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for clearing it out :) Mushroom (Talk) 11:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And it's happened again. Wowsers. I've never seen CSD empty before. Does someone collate stats on CSD size over time? Anyway, I guess I'll go find something more constructive to do... like deleting prods, lol. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

India-related articles appearing in this category

Why have a load of India-related articles suddenly appeared here? I can't see tags on them to suggest that are CSD. e.g. India itself.--Michig (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have something to do with this template - {{IndicText}}; though I don't have the technical expertise to figure out what the issue is.--Kubigula (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Urgent action for a copyvio

The St. Estevam article has been up for months, and is a direct copy violation of some Ph.D's post on a usenet board. This needs speedied ASAP, as it's already been up for far too long. Bellwether ^B _C 12:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you put stuff like this?

redacted...evidently he's trolling.Legotech (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Ahhh, so many templates. LET'S GET TO WORK! нмŵוτн τ 04:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeehaw! We just kicked that template backlog's ass! bibliomaniac 1 5 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, while I went to clean my dishes, you had deleted them all. Kudos! You deserve a cookie!

нмŵוτн τ 05:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I'm tuckered out. Think I'll go to sleep. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I have a cookie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selkciplum (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Time Sorting

I noticed that there was some discussion about how it would be useful to have candidates sorted by time added. This query does this for you. In the example given I've excluded all candidates under 2 hours old as well. Unfortenatly its not that user friendly. The output is in xml. This could be sorted out by using some javascript to dump the info onto a subpage if so wanted. josh (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Put back North Shore Women for Peace

Put back North Shore Women for Peace. Wasn't there a New York Times article explaining its relveance?!. Jidanni (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you take it up with the deleting admin first, Pegasus (talk · contribs). Failing agreement there, try WP:DRV. This page isn't the forum for undeletion requests. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hooray!

No more speedy stuffs! bibliomaniac 1 5 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? It was empty? Enigma^msg 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

History merge

Nobody seems to touch Category:History merge for speedy deletion anymore now that it's been removed from the main speedy cat. It's very annoying. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

History merges seem to take more effort than the other CSD criterion. Nakon 02:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, but they still have to be done. Tim White has been sitting there for days. Perhaps the "for speedy deletion" part should be removed from the category name. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sandbox

For some strange reason, pages with Template:Sandbox are listed in this category. What's up with that? bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed Give it a little time and the category should empty out a bit. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates for speedy deletion Db-t3

A lot of templates for speedy deletion are not actually listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. For example, Template:Routeboxwa is not listed, but has been tagged since 29 March 2008. You can find others at Pages that link to Template:Db-t3. It might be the seven day waiting period, but that doesn't seem to be the situation for Template:Routeboxwa and other templates. GregManninLB (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pets as A7?

I've just deleted Prince Chewy as A7. The article consisted solely of the fact that the subject is a black and white cat, so there was no evidence whatsoever of notability, but I've just realised there's no specific subsection of A7 to deal with pets, etc. Is this something that ought to be addressed, or do we treat pets as persons, or what? — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted any number of Mr. Fluffykins and Woodles articles and rationalized it as A7. I see no need to get hung up on the letter of "person" - animate being works for me. My dogs think I'm an unusually gifted dog who can drive cars and open cans, so I might as well return the favor and call pets people for speedy deletions. Acroterion _(talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my interpretation, A7 is the "obvious non-notable" criterion. The wording doesn't matter; look beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. If there's any or questionable notability, bring it to AfD or prod it. If it's obviously non-notable, A7 it. Nihiltres^{t.l} 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But, your still a dog right? 71.193.2.115 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

After my images got speedly deleted for no copyright

But, they indeed had the copyright explicitly spelled out... Why bother with all the verbage and policy? Just say ( as you clearly intend ) If this image is NOT earmarked to our standards, we will delete it without notice. All the rest is hiding the truth. No letter, no sprit, just play by your rules or DIE! ( and get your images deleted ...) There are also problems with the pages with image deletion, but hopefully the dirtbags will fix them. 71.193.2.115 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This is the least backlogged I have seen this page in a long time. Even nowcommons is caught up. Kudos to those doing the clearing!--Kubigula (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, C:CSD has even been empty for a few seconds. Cenarium ^Talk 14:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of what a backlog is

With two threads recently on the admin noticeboard about the supposed backlog on here, even though by traditional standards it was well under control, would it be a good idea to put somewhere in the wikicode what the traditional backlog is (which as far as I'm aware is 100 articles and/or images). Harryboyles 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to clearly state what a backlog is. If it has 50 articles and an admin is working on it, does that make it a backlog? If there are 40 articles and no admin doing work, would it, being under a limit, make it no backlog? I guess there are to many issues with picking a right number. Maybe the best that we can hope for is to have a bot control this. We set a number in a template that the bot reads and changes it as needed. Oh, and does the backlog include images? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why is User:WiccaIrish listed as a candidate for speedy deletion? Enigma ^message 05:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Same question for User:Basilwhite Enigma ^message 05:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Most likely because a template that was transcluded on those pages had a speedy tag on it at the time. VegaDark (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How to stop a speeding request for deletion

Hi. I just created a page, Contrafactual history to serve as a redirect to Alternate history, but in between the time I created the article and the time I posted the redirect, StaticGull (talk · contribs) tagged it for Speedy Deletion under CSD A3 within six minutes. I applaud the user's - to coin a phrase - speedy attention to the matter, but perhaps a bit more patience could have helped matters? Is there any sort of time between creation and nom for speedy deletion in place? Had I stopped for breakfast before inserting the redirect, I might have had a devil of a time re-creating the article. - Hexhand (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the version that was tagged. An honest mistake, but most definitely an A3 candidate. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Slap up an {{inuse}} tag straight off and it is very unlikely a near empty article with a helpful sounding name will be tagged, much less deleted by an admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

{{inuse}}, hmm. Yep, i should have used that. Good to know for the future. Sorry if I was seeming like StaticGull was a cad for tagging it; it just seemed quite sudden. - Hexhand (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to know, this just happened to me, too.--Diotemaheartsphilosophy (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use Rational Bot

Seems like someone is running a bot to add a fair use rational tag does not exist on the page, and placing many images up for deletion, though a fair use rational does exist in the image description. Perhaps the bots AI should be improved, or everyone of these should be verified by hand. We should not needlessly purge information from Wikipedia. —Slipgrid (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia CSD is shooting itself in the foot!

You know how we love shortcuts: C:CSD is a nice abreviated shortcut of CAT:CSD, which in turn is an abbreviation of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Well, I wanted to get to CAT:NNSD, so I typed in C:NNSD, only to find it doesn't exist. So, I create the redirect page accordingly. A little while later, I notice in the non-notable articles a redirect page up for deletion... C:NNSD. I looked to see who nominated, and it appears that it is self nominated! I've had a look at other redirects, and seen {{R from shortcut}} on there. I've added that to see if it made any difference, but no. Any thoughts? StephenBuxton (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All better. It just needed the colon to disable the category. Metros (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And above too. We don't want this in itself! lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, colitis again. In these cases: no leading colon: obey it; leading colon: point to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Images with no copyright tag

No images seem to be going in the category anymore; shoul dit be removed from the CSD page and the new dates stop being made, or is there still a use? Wizardman 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Category: Not Notable Person

Quarterback Justin Roper I nominate to remove him. He is NOT Notable. Need Admin help to remove him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.206.56 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't really qualify for speedy deletion. If you want to create an AfD, I would be happy to help you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New category of speedy delete?

In the speedy-delete template {{db-move|aaaaa}}, I am tempted to suggest inserting a statement [[Category:Dbmove]], and a corresponding new entry in the subcategories line in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion which would show all the pages which someone wants deleted to allow a page move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for speedy delete

The newly created article Columbia Records discography will become very long and unwieldy because this record label is over 100 years old and is one of the most prolific in terms out output thus possibly making this article way too long with even a quarter of the complete discography listed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well seems to be a bad idea for an article but that isn't a speedy deletion criterion. I remember the user from a year ago, was completely uncommunicative about others disagreeing with his ideas for music related list. So i'll try a speedy redirect and talk to them--Tikiwont (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Over Zealous Deletion (was Post Turtle)

Post Turtle was surely tagged too hastily - ONE (1) minute after initial post - while page still being composed and linked.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - Article Virginity Restored - Originally I thought it was due to 'politics' - now why is there no way for those eagerly wishing to clean up new articles to set a search parameter to allow a minimum time - say 24 hours to allow 'normal' Mature Age contributors (Those with a Real Life) a reasonable amount of time - MUCH longer than 1-5 minutes (see 12 Canoes entry!) to work in a rational fashion? I've been away for a few months, and now find 2 significantly notable contributions purged or marked for deletion within minutes by those 'ignorant of/unfamilar with' the material! Ok ok, I KNOW Teenagers know everything... :-P :-)

FoolesTroupe (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - the 12 Canoes WAS wrongly deleted too - see Discussion on the Help Page if interested.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Given that CSD I8 has been modified quite a while ago to allow immediate deletion, I suggest we merge Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons category and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to streamline and facilitate such deletions. Comments welcome. (cross-posted here, CAT:NC, CAT:NCT, and WT:CSD) —kur ykh 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See below. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Emphasizing the rules for the authors' benefit

Would it be possible to make the following phrases twice as large and italicize them?

"... do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."

"... hangon ... and then explain why you believe this article should not be deleted on its talk page."

Not that I expect everyone to obey, but given how often authors delete the speedy template I think a lot of them might just not have noticed that detail. As for the hangon, I chuckle every time I see a hangon template that someone has added more than a couple of minutes earlier, still supporting a shiny red talk page link. I wonder how often they just don't notice that the hangon tag alone is insufficient. Besides that, it would be amusing to see more of them try to explain why their blatant advertising isn't blatant advertising and why their three-year-old is notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A hangon tag without explanation causes me to either a/realize that they have at least seen the deletion warning and object, or b/are totally trying to troll. The removal of the notice and placing a hangon with an explanation is evidence that they are inexperienced here, and I don't bite them for it, but just proceed normally.

But often a hangon tag without a notice indicates something else--some newcomers do not realize it lists the article for deletion and will place it after they remove a prod, or instead of an "underconstruction" tag when they have not finished the article. In such cases I adjust the tags properly, take a careful look at the article, and go to their talk & explain.

I'm not in any case sure we want to make any of the notices larger & more conspicuous. If people don't read notices, nothing will get them to. Often not reading is a sign of anger at the notice, not partial blindness. If our notices were more polite and gentle and shorter, more people might read them. DGG (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for making this hidden

Hi all. Lately I have been developing a user script for new page patrolling, and one of the features it has is to use the MediaWiki API to query pages in this category. The API allows me to restrict the search to hidden categories, and I can take advantage of this rather nicely to reduce server load if Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is hidden. I also need this to be hidden in most cases because API category queries are limited.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Having marked an article for speedy deletion, I want to use the category link to reach Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, in order to monitor the backlog and administrator activity. This is not possible if the category is hidden. I don't see any discussion or consensus for such a significant change. 203.33.162.104 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about server load. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 05:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a significant change. In fact, several other administrative categories, such as Category:Possible copyright violations are hidden categories. (Note that Category:Hidden categories is a subcategory of Wikipedia maintenance). I do realize that as an anonymous editor, you cannot see the link, but you need to log in to perform any administrative actions, and you can bookmark the category page, or use the shortcut C:CSD. (Note that I use shortcuts like this all the time. Eg: T:TDYK.)

Also, I do not worry about server load. However, I also do not want to tax the servers unnecessarily.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Logged-in users can set their preferences to show hidden categories. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it advantageous for even anons to be able to see the articles up for speedy deletion. Some good editors here still prefer for whatever reason to go on that way. DGG (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposing that Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is merged into this category

Hi all. I'm proposing that Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is merged into this category. I note that this has been proposed before, but apparently not discussed or acted upon. The reason that I think this merge would be a good idea is because it centralizes the items needing speedy deletion, such that they will be seen by more people. I've seen large backlogs develop in the other category without being noticed, whereas if it fed into this category then that shouldn't happen. Is there any reason why the merge shouldn't go ahead? Mike Peel (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We had this already a few months back. Simply, many of the images in that category do not meet CSD:I8 for various reasons, including that the licensing isn't the same, the information hasn't been transferred correctly, etc. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Many images and articles that currently come into this category don't meet the CSD criteria. We simply turn the CSD down. I don't see that as a show-stopper. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The number of items in Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is already listed here, most of the other image backlog categories are usualy cleared out quite speedily so I don't think it's an issue of people not seeing them. The main problem is that a lot of admins just don't "do images" for one reason or other. On top of that I8 is the most complex image criteria (you need to check several things both here and on Commons before pulling the trigger), and also the least urgent (the only consequence of not deleting is usualy that we see the local copy of the same image instead of the Commons one). So I think the backlog is more due to it beeing relatively slow work not considered terrebly urgent rater than people not seeing that there is a backlog there. --Sherool (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm concerned that some of us admins when not being as careful as usual will delete them without checking the details. Don't tell me it never happens. :) DGG (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying out anchors

Let me know what you think guys, and feel free to revert. I'm adding anchors to the transcluded pages (excluding image-related cats) so that when you click on for instance "Contested", you don't have to scroll down to see the pages that are contested, the page will scroll down for you. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Solomon Dell

Could I get a hand getting Solomon Dell speedy deleted? It's patent nonsense vandalism (shows a photo of a racoon and says it's a person in costume, amongst other silliness), but the author keeps removing the speedy deletion tag. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in a list of the IPs that edited the article, so I can track down any related vandalism like this and revert. Also, our joker has recreated the talk page with a question. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Bob the Wikipedian/virgo.js

Can be deleted. It's being replaced by a non-javascript application. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Any chance speedy could actualy mean speedy?

I tagged this more than an hour ago... Lugnuts (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

2013 UEFA Champions League Final - Unsourced, messy. Jamie (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Insanity

We need many more active admins to help with the backlog. I've been at it for hours and I've barely made a dent. Enigma^msg 03:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For the first time in ages, it's not reporting a backlog. This calls for a party! Enigma^msg 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why do admins patrol/delete new pages when there are almost 200 "old" pages here waiting for attention? WWGB (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The number of articles in this category varies wildly, from 200 down to 0 at the moment as I type. Patrolling newpages can help prevent this category filling up and also helps to ensure that a large proportion of bad pages are caught rather than just passing under the radar. Splash - tk 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Purge link placement

This is in reference to Template:CSD/Subcategories but I think it would get more input here. Is there a deliberate reason for placing the Purge link where it is currently located? I find that it would be more useful at the bottom of the template so that you can see it if you use the back button to get back to CAT:CSD (while you're looking at the current list of articles). Thoughts? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice job on keeping the backlog down

Many of the current pages are only listed as a result of a template used on certain userpages being sent to TfD. Not sure how to deal with those. Remove the template? Enigma^msg 05:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A null edit (save the page without changing any text) should take care of it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

New tool

Admins who patrol here regularly may be interested in a new Toolserver tool that lists pending candidates for speedy deletion. At the moment the display is primitive, but I hope to make it more flexible. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Alert: A number of cartoon channels are on CSD

A number of cartoon related channels are appearing on CSD for some unfathomable reason (unfathomable to me, at least!). There is a discussion about it at: WP:AN#Kids programs in C:SD ?. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fighting Fantasy: The Warlock of Firetop Mountain

I notice that the category is displayed in alphabetical order, wouldn't it also be useful for them to also be displayed in order of nomination? I guess it's not possible or practical or it would have been done already? Anyway, I don't know how common it is for things to get overlooked for a long time, but Fighting Fantasy: The Warlock of Firetop Mountain has been there for three days now, and one I nominated myself recently was there for more than a day. This clearly isn't speedy in anyone's book... Miremare 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd bug

Why are pages that transclude Template:UnsignedIP (instead of using subst: like they are supposed to) showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? IronGargoyle (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Page that can't be removed?

Talk:Tea Party protests/Archive index is appearing in this category, but for the life of me I can't work out why! Even when I blanked that page then purged the category it still remains. Any ideas what's going on here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A redirect is tagged for speedy deletion, that's why. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Strategy

I've tried and failed to find where the transcluted Db-g8 and Db-meta is coming from, which is placing this page in CAT:CSD. Can anyone else? Peter 11:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously someone did, as it's not showing for deletion now... Peter 16:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in category

Hello. I've noticed that two templates (Template:Districts of Sri Lanka, Template:Provinces of Sri Lanka) that were tagged for SD are not automatically included in this category. Anyone knows why? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Don't delete this cat" notice

I rather think that any admin worth their salt would not delete this category. I'm very tempted to remove the banner telling admins not to delete it, as it does take up a bit of (vertical) space. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetization

Can someone explain why the "M"s are now shown after the "W"s? What happened to alphabetical order? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sub categories

I have created a conversation about this category at WP:CSD that can be found here. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Backlog of Attack Pages

In most cases, subcategories of Speedy Deletion candidates will register as backlogged if they have a certain number of member articles. This threshold is set at 50 for the Spam and NN categories - and for the Attack Pages category. Now, while some categories can fill over time, the attack pages category is usually empty - and when it does get articles, they're processed pretty quickly. This is good, we don't need attack pages lying about. Since I started speedy deleting, I doubt I've ever seen more than 10 articles in the attack category; it's never, to my knowledge, even approached 50. So I wonder - could we lower this threshold to some really low number? I was thinking 4 or 5, but 10 would work if needs be. The idea is that it should be easy to trigger a backlog on this category, due to the nature of its contents and the speed with which we should be handling them (whether to delete quickly or decline quickly). Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable and I would support it; but you might want to advertise this proposal on more heavily watched pages in order to get more responses. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A much better idea is to encourage every admin you know to install User:Ais523/catwatch.js and have csd:attacks included on it. I delete a lot of attack pages and the main reason is that they appear on my watchlist the moment I open it--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Patience

I WP:Boldly proposed an addition to the "speedy doesn't mean immediate" paragraph to emphasize the up-to-a-week definition of "speedy". Bbb23 reverted it but didn't give any substantive reason for removing it, just a bureaucratic request to obtain written permission in advance.

We just had yet another person worry at AN because a page had been listed here for nine whopping hours (A7 for a business, nothing critical). This isn't uncommon, and it's embarrassing to editors to be told they're overreacting, so I believe we need to provide positive information about when to report a page that's been hanging around here for too long. Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph with WhatamIdoing's addition italicized:

Speedy does not mean immediate. Although most speedy-deletion candidates are processed within a few minutes, more complicated pages may remain in the list for several days. Pages listed here should be reviewed in less than one week. If a page has been listed for longer than seven days, please leave a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard about it. If a page has been listed for less than seven days, please just wait patiently for the next admin to review it.

Before addressing the new text, I'm curious. Is it accurate that "most ... candidates are processed within a few minutes"? Do we have any statistical basis for that statement? Based on my limited personal experience, it might be fairer to say that most are processed within 24 hours or 12 hours, but not within a few minutes. Right now, I see several candidates that are in the importance category that were there last night when I reviewed them; at least some have been tagged for many hours. My guess is the duration a candidate remains probably varies more based on the category it's in. User requested candidates are easiest, with empty and nonsense ones probably being next, spam next, and importance being the hardest.

As for WhatamIdoing's proposed addition, how often do editors complain at AN about unreviewed candidates? It would seem that it has to be frequent enough to justify the addition. If admins think it happens frequently, what is the time frame we want to establish for "encouraging"/"discouraging" complaints? The current "several" is ambiguous, and maybe it's better to be ambiguous. Personally, I'd rather see some sort of automated mechanism that notifies us that the number of candidates is "backlogged" (I'm assuming there isn't such a mechanism at the moment).

My own view is we should tinker with the existing language and not add anything. If we are going to add some version of the proposed language, I'd like to reword it for style (and grammar).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

See meta:Research:The Speed of Speedy Deletions. Of the pages that go through CSD, the median is tagged within two minutes of its creation and deleted 36 minutes later. A quarter of pages are deleted in less than 10 minutes after creation. Unless you're checking this cat every five minutes or so, you'll miss many of the pages. The ones you notice are the ones that hang around for a while. And since so few are in the cat at any given point, it doubtless seems strange to inexperienced people that no one is reviewing them. (They're thinking "Hundreds of active admins, and we can't get just 50 pages reviewed?!")

There is an automated notice of a backlog. It is determined by the number of pages in the cat (triggers at 50). There isn't (as far as I know) any automated notification process that checks the age of the pages listed.

As for how often it comes up, you could scan through this archives search for discussions like this one. (Read that one, even if you don't search for others, and notice that the OP says that he believed that all CSDs were supposed to be processed in less than 24 hours.) I believe that discussions also appear at the Village Pumps and at WT:CSD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any further objections to this clarification? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think you're going to have to obtain a consensus for the change, and silence isn't a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have subbstantive objections to the actual text (you know, not red tape about the number of people who have or haven't commented), and if so, what exactly are those objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

We have someone else at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Slow_speedy complaining that a CSD candidate hasn't been deleted in less than 24 hours. Since nobody appears to actually object, I'm going to expand the text again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a compromise to offer, but it probably won't be enough for you. Change the sentence "Although most speedy-deletion candidates are processed within a few minutes, more complicated pages may remain in the list for several days." to " Although most speedy-deletion candidates are processed quickly, more complicated pages may remain in the list for several days." I italicized the change. Also, no addition of images. If that's insuffiicent, then I suggest you take it to WP:AN and see if any admin besides me will comment on your proposed changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to "quickly" versus "with a few minutes", but you're right: your proposal does not address the actual problem, which is the fact that people sincerely, but wrongly, believe that there is a 24-hour time limit.

Why don't you want this page to address the actual problem, which is that the mythical 24-hour limit is actually a 7-day limit? Do you support continued confusion as a matter of principle, or is there something about being contradicting this myth that you believe will harm the encyclopedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite what I said; I said I didn't think it would be enough for you. The current language says nothing about 24 hours. It says "several days". I don't know how you know what people think, and I don't have the time to look at the issue more closely, but people's expectations about speedy deletes should be based on policy, not on this category. I'm really tired of your loaded questions ("support continued confusion"). Please take this somewhere else; perhaps other admins will be more amenable to your suggestions than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss the contents of this cat's page is this cat's talk page, not "somewhere else".

I've provided several examples of people saying that they believe that there is a 24-hour time limit. There isn't at 24-hour limit. There never has been a 24-hour limit. The idea of a 24-hour limit belongs on the List of common misconceptions about Wikipedia. We could contradict that misconception here, but you don't want to.

What I don't understand is why you don't want the accurate information posted on this cat page. I know that you don't want it posted here; can you tell me why you don't want it posted here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning an RFC. Below is the question I'd like to have answered. Since you have reverted the text twice, would you like to provide a list of reasons why it's a bad idea? I've put in fake reasons so you can see how the formatting works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Drafting a question for a planned RFC

Speedy deletion is defined as being faster than AFD or PROD (less than seven days), not as happening within minutes. Most pages tagged for CSD are handled in less than an hour, but occasionally a complicated or borderline page remains in the queue for a few days. When this happens, some non-admins incorrectly believe that it has passed some deadline and post their worries to WP:AN, where they are told that there is no 24-hour time limit.

To educate non-admins and reduce unnecessary complaints and the potential for embarrassing people who are unaware of the timeline, should this page include text like "Pages listed here should be reviewed in less than one week"?

Yes, we should add text explaining the real timeline for CSDs because:	No, we should exclude text explaining the real timeline for CSDs because:
Many editors wrongly believe there is a 24-hour time limit for processing CSD candidates. Telling people the truth will reduce needless worries and postings at WP:AN. Providing accurate information will not change the actual response time, which is a median of 36 minutes from tagging to resolution.	We like being able to tell people posting at WP:AN that they're overreacting and ignorant. Admins will get fatally lazy about deleting attack pages if non-admins learn that there isn't a 24-hour time limit. Add reason here

That's pathetic.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per "there is no deadline". - jc37 22:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per "there is no deadline" where it says "Add reason here". Nice way to set up a false dichotomy. I've not seen anyone complain about slowness, but for the sake of argument I clicked on a diff or two. This is nothing--and so what if someone thinks they're sitting around too long? We have editors who think they can post their resumes here, we have editors who think that every LEGO block needs an article, we have editors who have nothing better to do in real life--surely we have bigger fish to fry than someone's post on AN. Now, if it were some BLP violation, or a threat, or a dangerous hoax, but it's not.
The other thing, and I don't think Bbb (as a policy wonk) has pointed at this: the more words you put in a template or notification, the less readable it gets. So, no--just no. We already have plenty of words in the bureaucratic side of things. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, nothing's happening here except an attempt to draft the question. If you'll look one inch above the section heading you'll see that I've been trying for a long time to get a reason out of Bbb23 for his opposition to adding this accurate information. This is my latest effort towards that end. I'd like to have those reasons so we can ask a fair question when the RFC is opened in a few days, rather than putting just my side up for the RFC. But if he doesn't have a reason, that he's willing to share then we can go with just mine and a note for anyone inclined to yell "biased question!" that he refused to offer any reasons (the fake ones, which I put up only to make the formatting clear, as I explicitly said above, would have to be removed if nobody has any reasons they want to put forward).

Anyone's free to add reasons above; there's no RFC tag and we're not live yet. One thing I'd like to know is whether you would support adding a statement that says there is no deadline at all, as a means of letting people know that there is no 24-hour deadline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, something is happening here. I'm not going to help you draft a proposal that I believe to be unnecessary. We have articles to work on--this is a time sink. I looked over the previous discussion again, and Bbb did leave a good reason for his rejection of your addition: "how often do editors complain at AN about unreviewed candidates?" And I agree: this is a solution without a problem. "No" also on the addition--we don't need deadlines. Finally, you seem dead-set on going forward with this; I wonder why since there's three admins here dead-set against it. And we are the ones who will be bound (or guided, or whatever) by what you consider proposing. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've provided examples to Bbb23 of this type of question appearing every few months at WP:AN. If you don't think it's a problem for multiple editors to post the same time-wasting question repeatedly, over the course of several years, then that's your opinion. I don't happen to share it, at least when adding one or two sentences could fix it. But whether to do so is for the actual RFC, which will be advertised in the usual fashion through the RFC boards, not for now. Right now, all I want to know is whether anybody is interested in writing the "con" side, or if they'd rather just have a "pro" side presented. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per "there is no deadline". The speedy deletion criteria define when a page may be deleted, but do not require that be actioned in any specified time. Per Drmies, this is a solution without a problem, and a request for instruction creep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, I like that term, "instruction creep". I'm going to try and use the ".... creep construction" more often. Thank you. I'm reminded of a colleague of mine, whose syllabi for sophomore literature classes run over sixteen pages. The more there is to read, the less one actually reads--unless, of course, we're talking about a Malcolm Lowry novel, which we are not. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  - I wrote a paper in college. The professor explicitly said there was no page limit. I took that literally, as I do too often. I got a high grade but with the comment, "the absence of a page limit was not an invitation to prolixity".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Matlock

{{Admin help}} Template:Matlock was tagged for WP:CSD#T3 14 days ago, lists that it is in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused redundant templates yet when I go to the categories, it says it is an empty category for the second one and isn't listed in the first one either. Not sure how these are slipping through the cracks. Technical 13 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've declined this, see my edit summary. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I can explain why the CSD T3 tag doesn't work right if anyone cares. I just started trialing a bot to fix the same problem with CSD C1 tags. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed: A graphical chart for users to see where the bulk of the CSD backlog is

A request came in to my talk page asking about a specific instance where the main CSD log was a little high, and it got me to thinking. Rather than having to grok the list at {{CSD-categories}} I propose adding a {{Pie chart}} to either the CSD-categories page or this page for the express purpose of getting a visual summary of the CSD backlog to see where the bulk of the membership is coming from. The pie chart template supports up to 10 categories so we can pick the 10 most troublesome categories of CSD and then group the rest under a "other" limit. Does this seem like a good idea? Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The easiest and best solution is to get some administrators to deal with it. If there is no backlog, there would not be a need to create tools to analyze it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on it and very rarely does the main CSD category go under the backlog level (under 50) so the administrators are already under a perpetual state of backlog. My proposal is to give the admins some more drill down options to figure out which sections need the most attention. Hasteur (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say from casual observation that in recent weeks the biggest contributor to the backlog is.... your bot! It is clear that these old AfC's need deleting but I am beginning to wonder if this is a backlog that need cleaning up, or an ongoing issue. Do you know how many of these there are likely to be in the queue? Ben Mac Dui 10:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

His bot never puts the CSD:G13 level over 50.

Ben MacDui There's ~42k pages that are eligible for G13 currently (Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions). The bot nominates up to the consensus imposed limit of 50, but that does not prevent other editors from making more nominations that push it above the threshold. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Support such a chart. I too would like to see some data here. Hasteur could you set a simple bot up that creates a table/line graph updated hourly that could offer some historical data for time periods? I'm thinking a 48 hour history would be sufficient, yes? Technical 13 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to noodle on how to do a line chart so that each time the bot runs, up to the resolution size, it takes one off the top of the list and puts a new one on the bottom of the list. Need to finish coding bot task 6 first. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments: `c:` link prefix for Wikimedia Commons

There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c: should be enabled globally as an interwiki prefix for links to the Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Instructions for attack pages

Jni removed the following text from the page: "In some cases, MediaWiki will offer a prefilled deletion summary that includes some of the content being deleted; make sure you replace the summary with something more appropriate (such as "[[WP:CSD#G10]] - Attack page") before clicking the delete button. If you do, by accident, quote the content, then you should undelete the page and redelete it with the correct deletion reason, before deleting the log entry for the first deletion." I reverted, thinking what while it may be that Jni doesn't need to see that advice, having done so many deletions, admins who delete a bit less often (and especially new admins) can find the reminder that it is possible to inadvertently quote part of an attack in the log entry when deleting an attack page, and that this is to be avoided, helpful. I don't see any downside to keeping this here, those who already know it aren't harmed at all. Now, per WP:BRD I am bringing the matter here for discussion. Does anyone else have a view on whether that text should be removed from the category page or not? DES ^(talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The CAT:CSD page has too much text that consumes vertical screen space for no real reasons. Categories like this should be fast to reload (or purge) in browser, and more importantly fast to eyeball search. There is no need for detailed explanations for deleting admins on the category page itself, even while being of some use for new admins; as the instructions about mechanics of deletion can go to somewhere else. Single sentence reminder is sufficient. Some time ago, there was even a warning not to delete the category itself, like any deleting admin would be stupid enough to do that! BTW, even if I by mistake quote content in deletion log entry, I most likely won't bother to go through a silly dance of restoring page, deleting again and rev. deleting the earlier entry, just because some instruction creep note says so. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)+tweaks

CSD C1

It seems confusing that there appear very similar categories:

When I find a category that is empty and has no pages assigned to it and classify it as CSD C1, it appears in the second empty categories category, not the first. The first is empty right now but the second one always has empty categories waiting for deletion. I just hope admins realize they are both categories and, if it makes sense, maybe they can be merged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The two categories serve different purposes. If you look at {{db-c1}}, you'll see that it initially places tagged categories in the latter category, and moves them to the former after four days have elapsed. The former category will frequently be empty, as the categories listed there are reviewed for speedy deletion. - Eureka Lott 00:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Speedy only applies if the category is empty for 4 days. The two categories provide a way to track the 4 days. So while some may be empty for more they 4 days they are all empty for at least 4 days. There is no way to easily trace when a category was emptied without this system. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize this, Eureka Lott and Vegaswikian. I greatly appreciate the clear explanation of the difference between the two. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Vijesh Rana

Please don't delete the page Vijesh Rana,wThis is about a real person,who is an actor,dont categorize it under hoax article,I m trying to create vijesh rana wiki page but you guy z deleted it,prevent me from making this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha1988 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted "as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" not as a hoax, and as it's been re-created so many times, it's 'protected' from editing. It can only be re-created by showing an administrator evidence that the new article will pass our notability policies. Peridon (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice you are responding to a question asked over 7 months ago? It has been quiet here :) I think obviously misplaced sections of talk, like this one, are best to archive to history early on, lest someone thinks this is the place for challenging speedy deletion decisions. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I did notice, and checked to see if someone had been removing things. How often does this page get archived? I notice that the top thread goes back four years... Peridon (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

LR Apps

Hi, could you mind giving me the article content from LR Apps so I can write it out in a text editor so it doesn't get deleted while im writing it, thank you.

CompanyDude (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Q: When was an article about a painting that sold for almost a third of a billion dollars in early 2015 nominated for speedy deletion?

A: In 2012.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2015

This edit request to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add parent category Category:Wikipedia deletion. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This category is categorized in Category:Speedy deletion, which in turn is categorized in Category:Wikipedia deletion. Categories follow a "tree" structure on Wikipedia so this isn't necessary. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 13:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Automating G8 tagging

A bot request for automating the tagging on G8 CSD's is currently open at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Josvebot_12#Determining_automated_G8_tagging_strategy. Please comment on that request if you are interested. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Empty categories

Currently we have both Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories as well as Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. the db-c1 template adds pages to the latter, although the former claims it is supposed to add them to that category. Currently the first category is linked from the main CSD page which shows there is no backlog, when in reality there is because pages are going into the other category. I'm not sure which we would rather use, but having both is confusing especially as they both claim the db-c1 template adds pages to them. VegaDark (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Bot to delete emptied monthly maintenance categories

It has been suggested that a bot be used for the deletion of monthly maintenance categories when they get emptied, in order to save the time of G6 taggers and deleting admins. Participate in the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bot_to_delete_emptied_monthly_maintenance_categories]). 103.6.159.67 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Where are the rest of the pages nominated for CSD?

As I write this, the overleaf page is empty. In the upper list, however, it shows there are 28 pages in the G13 category, and another 1 page in the "user requested" category, none of which I can locate. They don't show up on the overleaf page, or on the pages for the specific categories - despite repeated purging. So...where are they? How can they be cleared out so the numbers match up? Risker (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Weird.

The CATCOUNT {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions|pages}} does display 28! The count is known to be inaccurate for large cats but that ought not be the case over here. ∯WBG^converse 06:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Risker, I have noticed this happening for weeks. Appropriate empty categories (after 7 days) don't get moved over to the CSD deletion category so I just go to the holding category after 7 days have expired and delete them from there. I posted about this on a talk page a couple of month ago, was told to make a null edit and the categories would be updated but that trick hasn't worked for me and, to be honest, it's ridiculous to have to keep making null edits on a regular basis (several times a day) just to get the categories recategorized to the appropriate category. It's easier to go the holding category and delete them after 7 days have elapsed. But clearly, the bot needs fixing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz and WBG. I am at least reassured that I was not imagining things. Risker (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

:-) See T210307 for the technical details. ∯WBG^converse 08:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

How do I add or suggest a candidate for deletion?

The article linked below is such an obvious candidate for deletion. I'm unsure how to navigate the deletion process. --Lasalleexplorer (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Ciancaglini

I've tagged the article for deletion. You can read Wikipedia:Deletion policy for details on how our deletion policy works. Use WP:Twinkle if you need automated assistance. Lourdes 02:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ghosts in G6

Has anyone else also noticed a large number shown under G6, but almost nothing in the actual category itself? I've noticed it for many days now, and finally decided to clear my cache. It's still there, and still there through other browsers. Reh man 09:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pls check

Pls check. I guess this is a speedy deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Kaiser Dcddiegxo1e3d (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

This edit request to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Candidate for speedy deletion: Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury

G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose 103.233.122.80 (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done: This is the talk page for discussion of the page containing the currently nominated candidates for speedy deletion. Not the candidates themselves, you understand, but the page containing them. What other text should be included above the list, etc. This is definitely NOT the place to actually nominate pages for speedy deletion. In order to do that, place a speedy deletion template on the page you wish to be deleted. For G10, that template is: {{Db-g10}} PianoDan (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CAT:CSD" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:CAT:CSD and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Wikipedia:CAT:CSD until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

CSD tool

My CSD listing tool is back from the dead; now at [7]. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Who are you to decide and delete pages?

What is the reason of deletion of page concerning NFThryvnya? And who gave you rights to delete (!!) other pages? 178.197.238.132 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK the page NFThryvnya has never been deleted or created in the first place.

And also, WP:CSD determines the criteria. Weeklyd3 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's about User:Nstrnks. It mentioned something it called KyivNFThryvnya with a link to https://incredible-ukraine.org.ua/nfthryvnya which only calls it NFThryvnya. Administrators can delete pages. They were given the right at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

what is wrong then, what should be changed to avoid deletion of the article? Image is mine, everything described it's true and it is such new.

Just to take away link? 178.197.238.132 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Articles for creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)