Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Category_talk%7ECandidates_for_speedy_deletion_Archive1_76fd.html"

Category: Category talk archives