Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 2

Modification to criterion A3

Current criterion reads:

Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change.

New criterion:

Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change, or has been without attribution for six hours or more.


Would like to be able to delete these pages where the author did not attribute but would like them to give enough time to attribute. I've already made instructions (a how to guide) and linked it to the page that is displayed to new article creations. It is an issue. Legally, the copy can't be made without attribution. And there are alot of unattributed articles being moved each day. It is up to the article maker to attribute, not the administrator to come behind them and fix, I think. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I dont think the wording needs to be changed to this, technically such things already fall under the copyright speedy. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

"always"

I've removed the emphasis here. Not needed, and I don't always check page history. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 08:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay.  Hazard-SJ Talk 08:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Proposal

Of a new reason for deletion: Already exists on this wiki:listed as [[Insert name here]]. Battleaxe9872 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Instead of deleting, why not redirect to the existing article? Kansan (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
What if it was a very uncommon typo or search term (like "How much does gas cost?")? πr2 (talk • changes) 19:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

U2

this was a option in WP:TW. I was reverted, so let's discuss.

  • Is U2 valid?
  • If not, why is it in Twinkle?

I-20the highway 23:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

U2 was unceremoniously removed from the criteria in July 2009 (diff), and no one ever updated Twinkle. It probably makes sense to keep it as part of G6 and remove the code from Twinkle. I'll wait for consensus before making any changes. EhJJTALK 00:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah. The reason for the revert. I-20the highway 03:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

odd question

I was recently granted the importer right so that I could improve Simple's coverage of Alaska by importing and simplifying en.WP's articles about Alaska. Unfortunately this hasn't been possible in some cases because one line sub-stubs arte sitting at some of the titles. For example Sitka, Alaska consists of an infobox obviously copied from the en article and one sentence "Sitka is a city in Alaska." Is there any precedent or process for just deleting such an article to make way for an import that can be simplified into an actual useful article? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

One sentence articles such as those you describe can often be deleted under QD:A1 - No content. If it's non-controversial they could also go under QD:G6 - Housekeeping/Non-controversial deletions. Though I'm pretty sure you can just import over existing articles, thereby keeping the existing content in the page history anyway? Goblin 02:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!Reply
I would see no issue with you simply importing an article into your sandbox and then replacing it with the one line stub when ready. Kansan (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
When people "replace" a stub with a new version, should they use "move" or "cut and paste?" Racepacket (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Move sections to Wikipedia:Quick deletion

I propose to move all Quick deletion information to a new place: Wikipedia:Quick deletion. There is now something called Wikidata. It helps people who speak any language. However, for it to work right, the Quick deletion information would need to be moved. Steel1943 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • At this point, all changes have already been made to all applicable templates. Also, all other versions of Wikipedia have the "regular deletion section" and "quick deletion section" split. I'd rather others see the changes, then revert if necessary. I have made the changes seemless, since making a change like that means to fix a lot of templates ... and I have already fixed them all. Steel1943 (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh yeah, I have fixed all redirects as well. The worst situation is that everything gets moved back, and then it still works without any edits needing to be done to any templates. It's a win-win. Steel1943 (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
However, I do understand since you have requested me to revert, I must ... doing it now. Steel1943 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
All reverts are now done that could affect users in a bad way. Okay, time to start this discussion, since one is needed... Steel1943 (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Discussion for section Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Quick deletion to be moved to Wikipedia:Quick deletion

Wikipedia is growing, and trying to become better. Most other Wikipedias have the "regular deletion policy" and "Quick deletion" policies in different pages. Also, Wikidata is a helpful new program by Wikipedia to help other users to find pages in other languages. Now, the only way for the "Quick deletion" part of this page to work on Wikidata right is if it were its own page. It would be on a different page, but would still be easy to understand and read.

  • I have reverted all of my edits; everything will work as it did before with no problems. I think it would be a good idea. I vote to Move. So ... to move the "Quick Deletion" section to its own page, or not? Steel1943 (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • This change does not need an administrator, since the change can be done by an "autoconfirmed" user. This is the proper place for this to be spoken. However, I will put a link to this on there. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Since this change does not need an administrator to make it happen, it does not need to be brought up there. That page is for a problem that needs administrator help, and this issue does not need administrator help. This page is the place to talk about this. Users will talk about it here, and vote. The discussion can happen here. Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
There is now a template on this page to show this "Merge" talk. People will be able to get there with that. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, if you wish to implement a change, it's really unhelpful if you don't post about it anywhere. Anyway, I feel that this is an unnecessary change as our deletion policy isn't that long. Honestly, if people from other wikis come to check our QD criteria, I'd rather they review the entire policy instead of just the part for QD, seeing that the majority of the text in the policy is in the QD section and so the rest shouldn't be too difficult to read through anyway. Just because some wikis significantly larger than SimpleWP have a separate CSD page doesn't mean we should too, Wikidata or not. Let's start emulating those wikis when we have a significant amount of good content in the mainspace. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 06:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Change not needed. Furthermore, we do what we see needs to be done, other wikis do what they need to do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have written a longer comment on the Admin noticeboard: In short, all wikidata probably needs is a page existing at the given location. This can probably also be a redirect to our current page...--Eptalon (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Eptalon, that was the reason for what I did (and have reverted.) However, right now, Wikidata does not work with redirects (which I am trying to discuss to get fixed right now since that is a problem.) Unless that problem is fixed, the only way for the links to work right is to give the "Quick deletion" section its own page. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata is not a reason to split pages; I say that with my Wikidata admin hat on. --Rschen7754 04:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Rschen7754, I did not know that you are a Wikidata admin. I just looked: I see you are one of the "temp" admins there. Anyways, I sent you a response on your talk page here regarding a discussion I started on Wikidata about issues like this one. I look forward to your input. Steel1943 (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
For anyone else who might want to see the discussion that I am talking about on Wikidata, it can be found here. Anyways, if anyone has any questions about my actions on this Wikipedia at this point, please see my user page or talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Change not needed. We are specifically Simple English wikipedia. Part of our mandate is to be simpler than other wikis. Because our deletion policy is small it is simpler and easier to be contained all on a single page. Also I would like to note to you that when regular users of a wiki let you know that perhaps you might want to do something in a different way you might take that advice. We are a very different wiki than most wikis. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree; this should not be made more difficult than it has to be, and I apologize if my bold edits to the page caused problems. I tried to revert everything that I could after my edits, but you fixed the rest Djsasso, so I thank you. Instead of doing bold changes to the page, I would like to show what it could look like if the "Quick deletion" page became its own page. I made a page I will request be deleted after this discussion is over to show how it could look: here is the page: User:Steel1943/Deletion policy. On this page, the "Quick deletion" section has been moved to its own page, with "Quick deletion (QD)" now linking to the "Quick deletion" page I also made here: User:Steel1943/Quick deletion. I hope this better shows what it could look like if the change happened. Steel1943 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why do we have the R1 criteria?

Since G8 covers redirects to pages that were deleted or don't exist (it even says "This also applies to broken redirects"), why do we have the R1 criteria? It just seems redundant, since both criteria are pretty much the same, and the G8 criteria already covers what R1 is used for. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure when the part about redirects was added to it. It mainly is for talk pages of deleted pages. Broken redirects are R1. -DJSasso (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh I remember now. At one point we merged the two and removed R1 but they were later unmerged. I guess that sentence was never removed at the same time. I have done so now. -DJSasso (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Return to the project page "Deletion policy/Archive 2".