Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

"File pages without a corresponding file"

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C4 and author removal

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

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

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

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

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

Y Added. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Template doc pages that have been converted

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

I've tagged such pages with WP:G6 before, giving a justification like "template uses {{navdoc}} instead", and it's always worked fine. As long as the /doc page is just boilerplate (as opposed to substantial/unique to its template), I think it's clearly uncontroversial maintenance. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I am also such an admin. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

New T-criteria proposal

Based on the above, and the fact that despite multiple admins indicating that G6 shouldn't be used for /doc deletion in the Template space, I would like to propose that we add a new T-criteria specifically to fix this issue. It would be something along the lines of TX: documentation subpages that are no longer transcluded by the parent template. I'm happy to discuss wording and scope (or clarifications as to what constitutes "no longer used"), but from a point of initial consideration:

1. Objective: yes, as a /doc is either transcluded by its parent template (or for whatever reason, any template) or it is not
2. Uncontestable: the only situation where I could see an unused /doc needing to be kept is for cases of attribution (if it were copied to another /doc for example) but in those cases it should just be redirected anyway. At TFD they are 100% deleted.
3. Frequent: I decline at least one per week, and TFD is rife with them.
4. Nonredundant: As indicated in the discussion in the main section, we are misusing G6 to allow for deletion, which seems to be the only other criteria that people seem to want to chuck these under.

Thanks for the consideration. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Can this be made more general? Maybe "a template subpage not used by its parent, or another template"? With the understanding that Template:*/sandbox and Template:*/testcases are "used" despite not being transcluded. —Cryptic 23:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Are there any other template subpages that are as frequently obsoleted, to the point of being objectively and uncontestably delete-worthy? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  They seem to mostly be deleted with G6. Mostly-applicable deletions in 2024. —Cryptic 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  What I see in that list is almost exclusively User talk:Plastikspork/Archive 15#Mass template deletions (which some other admins did too apparently), to which this speedy deletion criterion as currently worded wouldn't apply because they were redirects not templates. Then there's Wikipedia_talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 26#Making Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates G6, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5, expired editnotices, some stuff like Template:POTD/2024-05-03, and run-of-the-mill speedies under other criteria or other parts of G6.

  The POTD example brings up an interesting point - this concept of delegation of deletion authority isn't specific to template namespace, it can be seen at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/M3GAN 2.0/archive1, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wizzrobe61 etc.

  Support as proposed anyway, though, I'm just bouncing some ideas off the wall. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (edited 03:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC))

  Making a new objective criterion, dealing with the misuse of the catchall G6, more “general” seems to miss the point.

  You want to make unused template subpages speediable? Does “unused” mean “never used”? How frequently is “unused template subpage” the driving reason for deletion at xfd? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it be TfD, not MfD? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Changed to xfd. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support for /doc pages as proposed. Oppose anything else without a much more objective proposal than that suggest in the conversation above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. As one of the editors that tend to send them to TfD, I sometimes skip them just because of the extra hassle of combining multiple templates into one nomination to make life easier for everyone. These templates always get deleted and usually only one editor even cares to comment, which is expected, since no one cares and the newer doc is always better. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• I support the general concept (ideally as a more general thing, because it is a frequent-ish occurrence), and I want to propose some draft language.

  T5. Unused template subpages

  This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as template documentation subpages which are no longer used in favor of centralized documentation, /core subpages which are not called by the template itself, and old subpages of {{POTD protected}}. It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}} [do we need this? It seems like a good way to be careful, but it would make the criterion more complicated]. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

  Wordsmithing welcome. (Being very pedantic, what ENGVAR does WP:CSD use? Favor or favour? Centralized or centralised?) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  it seems to use -or and -ize spellings. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protect edit request

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

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

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

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

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