Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

See also Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletions for discussions which took place in 2006-7 before it was redirected here.

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)

  Wording looks good, and I don't think a T5-exemption template overcomplicates things any more than the G8-exemption template does. Worth checking back after a year or so and potentially trimming if it never ends up employed in practice.

  On the pedantry side of things, excepting the accessibility provisions the WP:MOS only applies to articles so there is no requirement or need for CSD to be internally consistent in its ENGVAR. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:540A:5E37:3B0B:2225 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support the general concept, with the wording used by HouseBlaster. As a second choice, the original /doc-only proposal could work. Anything that moves well-defined routine operations outside of G6 is a positive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Pre-RFC finalisation

Before I put this forward as a formal RFC, are there any final thoughts about the wording of the new criteria based on the discussion above? Primefac (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Is centralised documentation intended as the only reason for lack of use that allows for speedy deletion or is it intended that all unused documentation subpages are eligible? I can see the current wording being read both ways. If the intent is the latter then rewording to ...documentation subpages which are no longer used (e.g. due to centralized documentation) would solve the issue (as would just removing what I've put as a parenthetical). If the former is intended then someone better at wordsmithing than me will need to have at it.

As for {{T5-exempt}}, I'd say it would be beneficial as there are bound to be some pages that appear unused but actually aren't (something related to subst-only templates, or uncommon options in transitory templates) or which are needed for some other not-immediately-obvious purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The most common reason I see for /doc pages nominated for G6 is when it is a "simple" /doc (maybe only containing {{collapsible option}} or similar) where the documentation gets moved to the main template and the /doc is no longer necessary. Other situations do include where multiple similar templates end up sharing a /doc, but usually what happens there is they are all redirected to that central /doc. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I like HouseBlaster's statement, but I wonder if the confusion comes because it's three long examples given after the initial statement; would it be better to say just simply This applies to unused subpages of templates. Such pages include template documentation subpages... (i.e. split it into two sentences). That might reduce the confusion of it only being centralised /docs. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That works. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What about using a bulleted list, like WP:G8?

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

• Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
• /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
• Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A+ Primefac (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We should also probably include the current de-facto process of Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates here as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I seriously love that I can still learn about new processes on Wikipedia. Probably not the best from a WP:CREEP perspective, but I still find it cool.

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

• Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
• /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
• Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
• Unnecessary subpages of {{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. We currently process a ton of subtemplates at TFD after the deletion of the primary template (this is backward to the proposal and discussion here, so it's not the exact same case) as G8. Is there merit to spinning that out of G8? Izno (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the rationale, but I do agree it's the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't be opposed but I don't necessarily see it as being necessary to combine them. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much benefit in moving something which is a core part of G8 out of that criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this party, but I submit for consideration, somewhat warily, Editnotices that are no longer used, typically because they have been blanked after sanctions expired or someone thought better of having an edit notice at all. We can use the "blanked by author" criterion for some of them, but most are blanked by people who did not create the notices. See this TFD. I will understand if including them would stretch the definition of this criterion, since they are not subpages, but they are in template space and tied to specific pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it would best to propose edit notices as a separate criterion, because as you say it's a stretch to include them with this one. My only query would be how frequent deletion of them is? Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, edit notices are all subpages of Template:Editnotices, so it is not that much of a stretch to include them. However, I think to simplify things, we should have a separate discussion after the T5 discussion where we can consider whether it is frequent enough to merit a CSD and, if so, whether it should be T6 or a bullet point in T5.

I will launch an RfC in 24 hours if there are no further comments/objections/feedback to the proposal above. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's OK with me to exclude it here. There are maybe about 100 to 200 blank editnotices right now, but I don't think anyone has been paying attention to them (many were blanked in 2021), so I'm guessing that deletion rates would be something in the low single digits per month. TFD is probably fine unless someone wants to go to the trouble of making a separate CSD criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to launch the RfC, but it turns out there is one additional thing we need to determine. WP:TCSD, while currently obsolete, used to apply to both templates and modules. I see no reason T5 should not apply to modules, given that modules are really templates which we have to put in a different namespace due to technical restrictions. I think adding subpages of Module:Sandbox to the list of things ineligible for T5 would solve any problems. Do others have thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone largely ignorant about modules your proposal makes sense, but defer to those who know what they are talking about if they disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too as a module namespace regular. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages)

The following discussion 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.

---

Should T5 be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion for templates and modules? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed text

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

• Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
• /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
• Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
• Unnecessary subpages of {{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, subpages of Module:Sandbox, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

• Support as proposer. These are frequently and uncontroversially deleted at TFD. Some of them are also currently being shoved into G6, but reducing the load G6 bears is a feature of this proposal, not a bug. It meets all four NEWCSD criteria:
  1. Y Objective: Either a subpage of a template is being used or it is not
  2. Y Uncontestible: Always get deleted at TFD
  3. Y Frequent: Primefac personally declines at least one erroneous G6 nomination per week
  4. Y Nonredundant: They are certainly being tagged as G6 (see above), but G6 is not a catch-all and we should be decreasing the load it carries
• I also think that using CSD has the benefit of making these deletions easier to overturn via WP:REFUND if the use for the subpage later arises. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have pinged all participants in the above discussion using {{bcc}} to avoid clogging the discussion.​​​​​​​​​​ HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be eating WP:TROUT tonight. I forgot to include the exemption for subpages of Module:Sandbox; I have silently corrected it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Notified: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and Template:Centralized discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Are the two specific examples of POTD protected and Taxonomy truly necessary? —Cryptic 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  I believe so, yes, because they are currently either deleted under G6 or G8 and the intention was to fold them into this as a template-specific reason. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support with or without the examples, per my comments in the pre-discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support as long as people are careful. CSD nominators and deleting admins will need to be careful about pages orphaned through edits that should be reverted. In monitoring orphaned /doc subpages, I sometimes find templates where the {{documentation}} portion has been deleted, typically in error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support, anything that reduces the workload on G6 is good to have as a standalone criterion. Although I would be careful with taxonomy templates related to unused taxa, since old taxa can still be documented, or even attempt to make a comeback with varying level of success (like Ornithoscelida). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support, seems logical and is being proposed by folks who know what they're doing. I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be WP:REFUNDed upon request? Toadspike [Talk] 08:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be WP:REFUNDed upon request? Yes, explicitly: editors are free to request undeletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above The AP (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense per above. Can’t see any reason why not. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support As Jonesey said, nominators and admins need to take care that unnecessary deletions are not made. However, this is overall a good idea. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Fine both with or without examples; the NEWCSD analysis is on the nose. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support --Takipoint123 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 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.

Author removal

T5 should allow removal by the creator of the page, right? Seems uncontroversial but needs to be added to the list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; easy enough to tag something with {{t5-exempt}} in those cases. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

G6 and G7 when others object

Given all the words on this page about how speedy deletion needs to be uncontroversial, I shouldn't be necessary but given discussions like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#April 4, 1974 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Wikipedia:JDELANOY I'm increasingly thinking it would be beneficial to make it explicit that anyone, even creators, requesting or endorsing G6 or G7 speedy deletion do not override good-faith objections to deletion from other editors nor past deletion discussions with a consensus for something other than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree, G5 should also probably be included for similar reasons, although the JDELANOY did anyway result in a consensus to delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 12#Wikipedia:JDELANOY. If there's already consensus for deletion at XfD it's not controversial. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not how speedy deletion works. If there are good faith objections it's controversial unless and until someone competent closes a discussion with a consensus for deletion. Speedy deletion needs to be essentially unanimous, that consensus can emerge despite objections is irrelevant. This is also much broader than just one speedy deletion you happen to agree with. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting that you use the phrase essentially unanimous. A good faith objection can fit under that definition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't though. Any good faith objection should, by every reasonable interpretation of everything in this policy, overrule an author request or similar. If you have two editors, one saying "delete" the other saying "don't delete" that needs to go to a consensus discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose a better way of phrasing it would be that any good faith objection means that a page cannot be speedily deleted under G5, G6 or G7 except where there is an almost unanimous consensus at an XfD, as determined by an uninvolved admin (ideally the XfD should be closed as speedy delete by that admin before or immediately after they delete the page, but this doesn't need to be part of CSD policy). Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

any more thoughts on this? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

These three criteria kind of exist on a continuum here. G6 is defined by a lack of objection - any remotely-interpretable-as-good-faith objection at any point, pre- or post-deletion, should be enough to prevent/reverse it, and if you can talk yourself into refusing such an objection, then it wasn't a G6 to begin with. G7 has a higher bar; in most cases I'd ask the requester to articulate a reason, but probably accept anything coherent. ("Stuff shouldn't be deleted because it shouldn't be deleted" isn't coherent, and I'm afraid that's how I read the objections to WP:JDELANOY.) A G7 in someone else's userspace (so it'd have been a U1 too) has an even higher bar - it'd have to be a pretty good reason.

G5, the main issue is sorting out whether the request is in good faith. If we're already at the point where we're deleting someone's pages on sight solely because of who made them, and they're already evading blocks to do it, AGF does not hold - I'd want to be absolutely convinced that whoever's asking for the page back isn't the same person with yet another account. I'd certainly object to any language being added here that weakens that, because it absolutely will be weaponized as "It says right in WP:CSD that you have to [help me evade my ban by] undelet[ing] this, no questions asked." —Cryptic 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

A brand new account requesting undeletion of something deleted under G5 is definitely a red flag (it might be in good faith, but its probably more likely not; a banned editor's request is not good faith) but an established editor's request should generally be honoured unless it was also deleted for some non-user-related reason (e.g copyvio). Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" mean?

G5 says that a page can only be deleted under that criterion if there are "no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions". However, if the sanction being violated is a CT restriction, does this refer to no editors not subject to the sanction, or no editors other than the original author not subject to the sanction? For instance, if two non-EC editors collaborate on an RUSUKR page, is that G5able? JJP_Master (she/they) 00:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if two non-EC editors collaborate to create a RUSUKR or other EC topic, it is G5able. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Circumventing a salted title: G4 or not?

It isn't very rare to see salted pages being recreated at variants of their original title, for instance Arshin Mehta Actress today (as Arshin Mehta is fully protected from recreation). In these cases, I've seen G4 be used, although it might not necessarily fit if the content isn't the same as the deleted one. Does G4 still apply, should it be expanded/another criterion added, or is that something that shouldn't be in the purview of CSD? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

G4 applies since there was an AFD on the same topic (assuming concerns haven't been addressed) but not simply because of the salt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

/Archive 88#Proposed new or modified criterion: clear SALT evasion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for both the previous proposal and the false positive list! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've G4-deleted the recreation and blocked the account (which was the same one that created the version at AfD) as spam/advertising-only. I came extremely close to title blacklisting, but decided that step isn't quite warranted unless they evade the block and create another version at a different title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a database report I look at every day or two that finds articles at titles that are a suffix of a salted title. There are a lot of false positives, but also a lot of stuff needing attention. And while G4 is my most common reaction, I have also created redirects or given name pages over obsolete saltings, started AfDs where I wasn't convinced enough that G4 applies, and done a lot of other stuff. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.

In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers to sufficiently identical copies, something a non-admin patroller can't check, rather than any recreation not addressing concerns. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with {{salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, {{salt}} on its own doesn't add any categories to a page. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Well that could be something useful to have. Given the specific title, I wonder if it should add the category itself or if there should be a similar maintenance template for "possible salt evasion" that would add it? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes there'll be an archived copy of a deleted page to compare against, for instance [1]. Sometimes there'll be visible past versions in the edit filter log, for instance Special:AbuseLog/39211633. In other cases, you can ask an admin. There's usually someone around on IRC or Discord who wouldn't mind assessing for G4ability. (Not me. Don't ask me. I hate doing G4s.) That said, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a template that says essentially "This page was created in apparent evasion of creation protection at {{{1}}}, and an admin is asked to assess whether it should a) be deleted under CSD G4 or b) treated as valid and moved to the correct title". I don't think that's something non-admins should be doing every time they see a recreated page, but when there's clear salt evasion I think it's reasonable to presume admin attention is needed. (All that said, obligatory plug for my essay WP:NOSALT. G4s are easier to trace when there's no salting to evade!) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title like Articles for deletion before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence at WP:SALT saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruption there. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —Cryptic 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that normal WP:RAAA requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name like Jimmie Harris or Luke Barber, to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

And, of course, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive229#Quick stats on salted pages. The protecting admin for both of your examples is no longer an admin, so you should be free to unsalt them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To clean up old SALTing, where there’s any doubt you should go to WP:RFUP. True, you should ask the deleting admin first, but the text would be near identical in both places, should the old admin not answer or you not agree with their answer.

Do this a couple of dozen times, and then talk about the need for streamlining the process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think admins need to ask at RFUP before they unsalt pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Except where stated otherwise in policy, any reversion of an admin action is governed by WP:RAAA. The way that policy is usually interpreted, that means that if the reversion is because of a clear change in circumstance, it can be done unilaterally; I did that with Willy on Wheels, the relevant change there having been the emergence of a suitable redirect target. But if it's because some admin thinks the title just doesn't need to be protected anymore, then RAAA's expectation of discussion applies (if the protecting admin is still active). WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO might cover some common-sense cases, but wouldn't apply to a systematic effort. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with your essay! For the case where we already have a salted title and there is possible of salt evasion, I made a prototype template at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}} based on your wording (and the design of {{Salt}}), happy to hear any feedback on whether it should be implemented! (presumably, with a corresponding tracking category) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding the "possible salt evasion" template

Following the above discussion, I have made a prototype for a template alerting administrators of possible salt evasion, which is currently at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}}. What do we think about moving this to templatespace, with a corresponding tracking category, and adding a bullet point to WP:G4 mentioning its existence? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It's redundant to {{salt}}. Just give it its parameters (which you should always be doing anyway). —Cryptic 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Not really, {{salt}} is to ask for a page to be salted, while this would be to note evasion from an already salted title. Also, {{salt}} does not produce categories (as it is meant to be used alongside G4), while this would be to alert admins that they should check if it might be a G4 (as non-admins cannot see it). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A7 and groups of people

WP:A7 is applicable to "people". Is there any reason why it has to be a single person, rather than a group of people?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, no. Changing it from a single person to "persons" was the very first expansion of A7 (linked discussion here), about half a year after it was first introduced. The last vestige of "groups" was removed in this edit, which was labeled a revert and a clarification but was neither. —Cryptic 01:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You do have a way with words. So, just to be clear, A7 would therefore apply to clans and tribes, right?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why not. —Cryptic 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC on interpretation of G11

See Wikipedia:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you ought to sign your proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel like policy RFCs shouldn't be about who started them, and WP:RFC says "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Didn't know that - shows you how often I start RfCs...never. How about publicizing it at WP:AN? I wouldn't have known about it except I had the CSD Talk page on my watchlist because of a question I recently asked. Sounds like the RfC affects admins a fair amount.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)