Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be
Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.
Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully.
Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep.
Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise.
If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.
Should there be a new R5 criteria for incorrectly formatted redirects to DAB pages? Redirects to disambiguation pages with malformities qualifiers such as Foo (desambiguation), Foo (DISAMBIGUATION) and Foo (Disambiguation), this excludes redirect using the correct WP:INTDAB title namely Foo (disambiguation) or any title that has useful history. Redirects with incorrect qualifiers that don't target disambiguation pages can be deleted under G14.Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer and the discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26#London (Disambiguation) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages these redirects are a nuisance to editors trying to fix disambiguation errors and search takes readers to the correct title if deleted anyway. I would be open to moving the redirects to pages ending in the (correctly formatted) "(disambiguation)" that point to pages that aren't DAB pages here if people think that's a good idea. 1 objective, most agree they should be deleted though a significant minority disagree as is sometimes the case with other criteria, 2, uncontestable, per the 2 linked discussions there is a consensus that they should be deleted, 3, frequent, although not extremely frequent they are frequent enough IMO, 4, nonredundant, these may be able to be deleted under R3 or G6 as it was argued in the 2022 discussion but given the discussion it would be clearer to have a separate criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These shoot basically be deleted on sight. BD2412T 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alternative capitalization of first letter being included – These are not harmful and Wikipedia is not improved with their deletion. It's entirely predictable that someone would miscapitalize a disambiguator. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As the only non-article pages in mainspace, disambiguation pages and redirects are each special and somewhat obscure from a reader viewpoint, and redirects to disambiguation pages are doubly so. The correct versions of these redirects are a technical measure to assist editors and the automated tools they use. The incorrect versions, including capitalised variants, serve no purpose and help no one. Shoot on sight. Certes (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Entirely unhelpful to keep these around. Might as well keep any and every misspelling as entirely predictable that someone at some point will make such an error. Better to make it clear that it is an error than to let an editor think they have created a correct wiki link. older ≠ wiser 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deleting "(Disambiguation)" redirects if they redirect to a disambiguation page-someone might miscapitalize the D (like in the case of holding the ⇧ Shift key for too long), and while it may not necessarily be helpful, it's not harmful either. Support deleting those with misspelled "disambiguations" and those that have "disambiguation" yet don't have appropriate disambiguation pages that exist-those ones are search bar clutter and might annoy or mislead people respectively. Neutral (tilting support) on deleting the "(DISAMBIGUATION)" ones though-this error (e.g., holding the ⇪ Caps Lock key) does happen, but not very often. Those may help some people, but they're mostly an annoyance, so Wikipedia may be safe without the fully capitalized disambiguators. Regards, SONIC678 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
those that have "disambiguation" yet don't have appropriate disambiguation pages that exist Redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" (with any capitalisation) that don't point to a disambiguation page and cannot be retargetted to an appropriate disambiguation page are already covered by R4. Those that don't end that way need discussion to determine what, if anything, the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These are harmful because linking to them from anywhere except their RfD nomination is always a mistake per WP:INTDAB. They should all be red links so its immediately obvious to the editor that tries to add them. In fact, this is precisely why we should delete "(Disambiguation)" redirects since those are the most likely ones to make editors trip up. The very few editors that hold down Shift for too long while searching for disambiguation pages (I'm guessing people don't search for dab pages too often in general so imagine how rare those mistakes are) will be taken care of by search anyway. Nickps (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we shoudn't have any redirects pointed to dab pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't follow from my comment. What I said only applies to the redirects included in the CSD proposal. Linking to e.g. doing instead of [[do (disambiguation)|doing]] is wrong but the redirect should still be kept since it's useful for searching. Do (Disambiguation) is not useful because it's an implausible search term and anyone who nevertheless searches it today ends up in the correct page yet it looks close enough to the correct version that an unsuspecting editor might think it's fine per WP:INTDAB even though it's not. Keeping it would provide no benefit to the readers but would cause problems to the editors and the problem it would cause to the editors outweighs any potential benefits. Nickps (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC);edited: 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just really disagree that it's an implausible search term to have the alternative capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who types "(disambiguation)" in the first place? Almost all (if not all) our readers would type the name of the thing they are looking for and click the hatnote. I'm guessing (but I admittedly don't know for sure) that a lot of editors do the same. So, when even the correct capitalization is implausible, imagine what the incorrect one is. And again, for the very few people who do type the whole thing instead of clicking on the correct suggestion, and the very few times they get it wrong, search will find the right page anyway. Nickps (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people do search directly for disambiguation pages, e.g. when they are looking for a list of things called X, or when they know or suspect that the X they are looking for is not the primary topic but don't know what the article is called. As far as I am aware, it is not possible to know how many people "some" is, other than it's greater than zero.
Regarding the capitalisation, everywhere outside of disambiguators there is a very strong consensus that redirects from plausible alternative capitalisations (such as Title Case) are a Good Thing. I've never seen any remotely convincing evidence for why disamiguators are different. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing has changed since the RFCs. Paradoctor (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) ; added image 21:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out every time search suggestions (the image) are brought up at RFD, this is only true for a subset of ways people navigate Wikipedia. Users, including but not limited to those following links, entering the URI directly, or using some third-party search methods will not end up at a page that doesn't match the capitalisation of their search directly. What happens then depends on a combination of multiple factors, but some will be one click/tap away from the page they want others will be up to at least three clicks/taps away. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you find it so frustrating because others don't find your argument convincing? This may be a case of touring the sticks.
third-party search Just for kicks, I tried a few external search engines with the query "London (Disambiguation)". Unsurprisingly, all of them returned London (disambiguation) as their first hit. If you go through the search API, you go directly there. Paradoctor (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You not being convinced doesn't mean others weren't, so please don't act like they're silly for saying their peace. Thryduulf's argument in a previous RfD actually made me reconsider my view and realize how silly I was for supporting the deletion of alternative capitalizations of disambiguators. As if editors would never accidentally or mistakenly capitalize one, eh? As if these capitalizations are somehow detrimental and damaging, or unhelpful. I think what's silly is to act like they're saying something ludicrous. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
like they're silly for saying their piece Please don't put words in my mouth. Thryduulf complained in their edit summary about not getting through to others with their argument. I suggested that they might not have given enough consideration to changing their approach, which hasn't worked. It's one of my more hard-earned lessons from contributing in this place that being Right™ and being agreed to are different things. As Lonestone put it, doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result is not zielführend. Paradoctor (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between not being convinced by an argument and pretending that argument does not exist. It's fine to think that disadvantaging a proportion of readers is OK, what is not fine is claiming that nobody will be disadvantaged. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, words are being put in my mouth. Where did I say that "nobody will be disadvantaged"? Maybe you were thinking of somebody else? Maybe I should now complain about not being understood? Paradoctor (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "nobody will be disadvantaged" is implicit in your posting of the image directly above when it has been explained, multiple times, why arguments relating to search suggestions are incorrect and/or misleading (depending how they're phrased). Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is you reading stuff into my words. All I did was let some air out of your argument. You don't have to like it, but don't misrepresent my words. Paradoctor (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You let no air out of my argument, because my argument has always explicitly acknowledged that search suggestions exist and help some people but because they do not help everybody they are not evidence the redirect is unnecessary. Pointing out that search suggestions exist adds nothing to that at all. Pointing out search suggestions exist in combination with an argument that says such redirects are unnecessary is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my job to convince you. It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.
That I have not rebutted your every point is because I don't deem it necessary. I've argued to the point where I let the process do the rest. It may not satisfy you, but it does not give you licence to impugn my words as misleading. That is inappropriate. You believe you're right? Fine. Then wait for the close. Or talk to someone else. The only thing you can achieve here is badgering me. Paradoctor (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to convince me, or to agree with me. I'm asking you to acknowledge the existence of arguments that refute yours rather than pretend they don't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again for the hard of hearing: WP:BADGERThe fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not [...] mean that others are obligated to answer (added emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the search method of I use, you're 100% correct. The lack of the alternative capitalization has been a hindrance at times. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose "Disambiguation" redirects per my arguments at the linked RfDs. These are useful redirects and deletion harms the encyclopaedia, speedy deletion would be even more harmful. Almost all implausible misspellings of "disambiguation" can be speedy deleted under G6 and/or R3 already, I've not seen any evidence there are enough that can't to justify speedy deletion. Plausible misspellings should be kept like any other plausible misspelling redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I know, obvious and unlikely names can already be speedy deleted. The Bannertalk 22:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a case which R5 would cover goes to RfD, some editors say that it should have been deleted speedily but others oppose the deletion. I'm not sure whether those who oppose disagree that the case is obvious and unlikely, or that CSD includes obvious and unlikely redirects. Either way, it seems that we need to clarify the consensus on this matter. However, if another CSD criterion already covers this case, please suggest a clarification to it rather than creating R5. Certes (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CSD is explicitly only for the most obvious cases. If there is disagreement about whether it should be deleted at all then it's not suitable for speedy deletion. The cases where there is agreement are already unambiguously covered by existing, uncontroversial criteria (G6*, R3 and R4). *G6 isn't completely uncontroversial, but the "unambiguously created in error" part that is relevant here is not controversial) Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly disagreement about whether R5 should become a CSD. Does that make it not a CSD? Is unanimity required for this sort of change, or just consensus? Certes (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be uncontroversial that every page which could be deleted according to criterion should be deleted. When the discussions show substantial disagreement then it is clearly controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor states that alternative capitalizations should have been speedy deleted then they're wrong. They do not qualify under the existing R3 and G6 rationale, as I've explained to Crouch when they've CSD tagged alternative capitalizations in the past. They're possible search terms, which makes them ineligible for R3, and frankly I'd love to see AnomieBot or something regularly create the alternative capitalizations, similar to how it does with hyphens and en dashes. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope there is no way that systematically cluttering the namespace with more erroneous redirects would gain consensus. Where do we stop? Do we also create 356,000 redirects for each plausible misspelling of "disambiguation"? How about duplicating every qualified article title by creating redirects from miscapitalisation Foo (Film), Foo (Footballer), etc.? Certes (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? It doesn't make Wikipedia worse. They're possibly search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't want to bludgeon the discussion, so I'll back off after this. But can anybody give me one example of how pages with an alternative capitalization on the disambiguator are a net negative and worth spending our time on fighting against? Those are typically piped anyways, so people wouldn't typically notice anyways. I'm always open to changing my mind and view, but over the last year where I've been following that disagreement, I just don't get it, and I really want to. The justification I end up being led to is a a user essay, not a guideline, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If someone convinces me I'll happily change my view and help clean up. But I just genuinely don't get it and feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people are steadfast against alternative capitalizations. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we have a page that intentionally links to more than 7 dab pages like Joey (name). That page was tagged with {{dablinks}} by User:DPL bothere because the links didn't end with "(disambiguation)" like WP:INTDAB says they should. Once that was fixed, the bot removed the tag. However, had a well meaning editor used "(Disambiguation)" instead in an attempt to fix the problem, the tag would have stayed and the bot would readd it if someone tried to remove it. In that case, the editor trying to fix the problem would be at a loss since all the dab links are correctly marked as such from their perspective. User:JaGa (who should have been notified of this discussion from the beginning) can correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, considering the hypothetical I described above as well as the fact that the number of people who will be inconvenienced by the absence of such redirects is vanishingly small, is it worth it to keep them? Nickps (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickps: Would we not have the page link to the proper dab location instead? People linking a redirect by mistake (of say a plausible misspelling) would not be reason enough for redirect variations not to exist. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a tool used to maintain the encyclopaedia encounters something that makes it behave in an undesirable manner then it needs to be either fixed or replaced with a tool that works properly. We should never degrade the reader experience (such as by breaking links) just to make life easier for editorial tools. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tool does not behave in an undesirable manner. This is what is supposed to happen. WP:INTDAB says the community has adopted the standard of routing all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects (emphasis in the original). This isn't just a faulty assumption by a bot author, there is consensus behind it. Even if we decide that we should keep redirects of the form "... (Disambiguation)", "... (DISAMBIGUATION)" etc., there is no reason to change INTDAB or User:DPL bot's behavior. We will just have to replace every mainspace link that points to such a page with the correctly capitalized version. The reason I still want to delete those pages is because I don't think such a process is worth it. Nickps (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the bot is failing to recognise intentional redirects to disambiguation pages as intentional redirects to disambiguation pages that is undesirable. Even if we decide that we should keep redirects of the form [...] We will just have to replace every mainspace link that points to such a page with the correctly capitalized version.[citation needed].
The purpose of routing intentional links to disamiguation pages via redirects is so that they can be distinguished from unintentional links to disambiguation pages. The capitalisation (or indeed spelling) of the redirect is completely irrelevant to that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think INTDAB should stay exactly as is since if we changed it to allow alternative capitalizations, that'd cause intended dab links to be inconsistent with each other, which would look unprofessional. All lowercase "disambiguation" should absolutely be a house style for dab links, even if we allow alternate capitalizations to exist. At best, we could have a bot recognize that those links are intentional and change them to the correct version, but we should not let them stand. Nickps (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After carefully re-reading that comment three times, I can't believe that I understood it correctly. Is it seriously suggesting that any old qualifier that looks a bit like "(disambiguation)" will do and, rather than correcting such errors, we should leave them in place and rewrite our processes and software to allow anyone to misspell the word however they like? Certes (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not understood the comment correctly. I'm saying that we could choose to allow any string that resembled "disambiguation" and still achieve the goal of distinguishing intentional and unintentional links to disambiguation pages. This means that if we want to restrict it to a subset of that then it has to be for other reasons than simply achieving the goal. Personally I think "disambiguation", "Disambiguation" and "DISAMBIGUATION" should all be identified as correct; other capitalisations and any commonly-encountered misspellings (if there are any) should be changed to one of those three by a bot, and misspellings should be flagged for human attention.
What I didn't say, but should have done, is that regardless of what we choose to accept for internal links that is completely independent of which redirects should be kept for the benefit of people searching or following links from external websites (in the same we keep almost all other redirects from plausible but incorrect capitalisations despite not linking to them internally) Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that's clearer. I think that any hypothetical bot should correct other capitalisations in links along with known misspellings, as we currently do manually. That is a discussion for another place but, if we find consensus that INTDAB links to Foo (DISAMBIGUATION) are a good thing, then we should retain redirects of that name rather than deleting them speedily (or slowly), and possibly create the 99.999% of them which are currently missing. That is indeed a different question from whether we should retain such redirects for searching or external links. Certes (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite simple, if you think "Foo (Disambiguation)" or even "Foo (DISAMBIGUATION)" redirects are useful then get consensus to have a bot create all of them. Either readers and editors find them useful, in which case they should all be created or they don't, in which case they should all be deleted unless an exception applies. And if we think things out well as you said in the London discussion (its not clear if you're referring to the individual or mass creation as "well thought out") then we would realize that it is not good use of editor time to create and patrol random DAB redirects rather than create them when a bot. Again this is different to other types of redirects like where one redirect for an alternative name is used while the other isn't. All DAB pages have the same function and the (im)plausibility applies to all such titles regardless of if someone arbitrarily creates some. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: What makes alternative capitalizations on disambiguators any different from alternative capitalization redirects? I don't see people up in arms about alternative caps used for a wide variety of redirects. I'm not arguing for the full caps by any stretch, but I'm not sure consensus is even required for alternative capitalizations. As for, "..then we would realize that it is not good use of editor time to create and patrol random DAB redirects", the bot which automatically patrols a number of redirects typically automatically marks a wide variety of alternative capitalizations as patrolled as well. I don't believe this would add much, if any, burden to the NPP team. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RDAB gives the reasons for DAB pages with incorrect qualifiers and if we wanted them they would be created with the correct templates etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RDAB is an essay that expresses opinions. Some of those reflect widespread consensus, some of those opinions do not, and it makes no effort to distinguish them. It also makes no attempt to justify most of those opinions - e.g. it doesn't give any reasoning why "(Disambiguation)" should be regarded as less correct than "(disambiguation)". Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: I've read the WP:RDAB essay, but I fail to see how disambiguators using a different capitalization are harmful to the encyclopedia but redirects using alternative capitalization without a disambiguation are not (not that I want other alternative capitalizations deleted, just wanted to ask this again since it wasn't addressed). In short, I'm looking for an explanation and justification other than because a user essay says. I'm trying very hard to understand how the disambiguations in brackets, such as "(Actor)", "(Politician)", or "(Singer)", make the site worse, but no one has offered up a good explanation. Capitalization after the opening bracket certainly isn't unlikely, someone may have just held the shift button a slight bit too long. Newer users also usually aren't familiar with our naming conventions, so it doesn't seem implausible that someone may capitalize what's in brackets not knowing that we don't do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bots which mark redirects as patrolled just look at who created them rather than attempting to triage their title, target, rcats, etc. Being patrolled in this way simply means that a trusted editor thought it should be created (or made a mistake). Certes (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: That's actually not true, the bot will mark certain kinds of redirects as patrolled, even if you aren't on the redirect autopatrol list. See some of the rules for the bot listed at User:DannyS712 bot III/rules. You'll note under bot task #38, point B, focuses on the target and the redirect, comparing the two for differences in capitalization and marking them as patrolled. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the correction. I remember making suggestions when Danny was writing the bot about what sort of redirects could safely be passed, then I ended up with mine being passed based on author, but I didn't realise both measures were in place. Certes (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any more suggestions about redirects you think that should be autopatrolled I'd love to hear it @Certes. We recently reached consensus to autopatrol the redirects left behind by page movers when a page is moved (based on the threshold to receive the page mover permission, we should be able to trust the moves made by these users). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a think and reply somewhere more relevant. Certes (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot would still make fewer mistakes than a human if programmed correctly and would manage to create consistency. @Hey man im josh and Thryduulf:WP:AFFINITY says or a disambiguated title with one parenthesis missing (the last is an example of an unnatural error; i.e. an error specific to Wikipedia titling conventions that would likely not be arrived at naturally by readers, thereby adding to the implausibility). A title when the error is in brackets (or commas) is generally implausible as its very unlikely anyone will make use of it and as BD2412 said in the 2022 RFD as it stands these excess incoming links are a nuisance to editors trying to fix disambiguation errors. Deleting these will only enable access to the links with the proper capitalization. So with almost no likelihood of use by readers (and if it is likely we should create all) but an inconvenience to editors who's efforts would be better spent of improving other things for our readers I think this along with the 2022 and 26 March RFD that there is a consensus (though weak) that these should not exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:AFFINITY is just a different section of the same essay so you haven't actually answered the question asked. No evidence is presented for the assertion that A title when the error is in brackets (or commas) is generally implausible as its very unlikely anyone will make use of it - indeed in multiple AfDs evidence that people do use some redirects that have "errors" within the parentheses. Deleting these will only enable access to the links with the proper capitalization. As repeatedly explained, this is false - some readers will access the content they are looking for via other links, other readers will not.
As also mentioned multiple times, the inconvenience to editors can be solved at a stroke by changing the programming of the bot to stop flagging the redirects as errors (and/or by changing them itself). Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been presented to support the claim that readers will benefit from a few random qualified redirects to DAB pages while multiple editors who fix DAB linked have expressed the point that they inconvenience editors. In a few cases evidence has been presented that they get a few views and have a few links but that doesn't show the viewers would actually have been inconvenienced as its likely the readers would have landed on the correctly capitalized version first time and the links would be corrected/wouldn't have been made to the incorrect title "A redirect that has other wikipages linked to it is not necessarily a good reason for keeping it. Current internal wikilinks can be updated to point to the current title.". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No evidence presented" – Seriously? There absolutely has been evidence that these can be useful. It's funny considering the crux of your argument is a user essay and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As mentioned, the bots can be tweaked. Please ping me when you propose another rationale to delete all alternative capitalizations on Wiki because of people mistakenly linking to a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: From what I can see leaving aside the linkrot arguments that were presented in the 2022 discussion (but obviously not in the 2024 discussion) the main reason for keeping them was that some people navigate using direct URLs rather than the search box but there wasn't any reason to believe that its likely many will do that for the very small number of them that exist. And I didn't write the essay which is in the project space not userspace though I did add a "See also" to an essay I write years ago and have commented on the talk page, see WP:PERESSAY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When asked for a reason other than "this user essay, that presents no evidence to back up its assertions, says so" you point to... a user essay that doesn't even discuss the topic, let alone present relevant evidence? Why do you think that is relevant?
Your other argument is "evidence was presented in discussions that people use these redirects" as evidence for your assertion that people don't use these redirects. That's not convincing me you are listening to what people are saying to you. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf:WP:RDAB is not a WP:User essay (yes it was a user essay in the past but its been in the project space for nearly 8 years) its a project essay that as noted I haven't really contributed to and most people support even though a significant minority oppose it. I'm just going by the consensus of which COSTLY has been cited in hundreds of RFDs over many years so its not my personal preference I'm going by what the consensus is which appears to be that they should be deleted. RDAB specifically discusses redirects with incorrect qualifiers. That's not a case of IDONTLIKEIT. If you want a reason other than based on the project space essay then I'd argue that those created accidentally (and were moved to the correct case) are borderline G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those which are G6 can and should be deleted under that criterion so a new one isn't needed. Of the rest, firstly there aren't that many (so a new criterion isn't needed) and secondly not all of them should be deleted reducing the number even further. Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RDAB states: This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
WP:RDAB is not a WP:User essay – The point is it's an essay created by a few people, not policy, so the semantics of it don't really matter. These things have a habit of not changing beyond the original's writers intentions, otherwise people encourage someone to write another essay.
I haven't really contributed to and most people support even though a significant minority oppose it – You may not have contributed to it, but you're using it as the primary rationale when arguing for additional CSD criteria to be added. As you mention though, a significant minority oppose it, meaning this suggestion does not fit the criteria of being uncontroversial.
RDAB specifically discusses redirects with incorrect qualifiers. – Template:R from incorrect disambiguation and Template:R from miscapitalisation both exist as relevant categories and are accepted types of redirects, by and large. It's unclear how a mis/alternative capitalization in brackets makes the search time suddenly in valid.
If you want a reason other than based on the project space essay then I'd argue that those created accidentally (and were moved to the correct case) are borderline G6. – I've been begging for a reason other than the essay. As mentioned though, I fail to see what makes an alternative/miscapitalization of the first letter of a disambiguator an unlikely search term and an unhelpful redirect.
Thryduulf and I have presented numerous examples of how these redirects are possibly useful, but throughout the discussion you keep coming back to RDAB. Whether you want to use the words or not, this absolutely boils down to a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: An essay that has been endorsed by the majority of people does appear to have consensus. Yes PANDORA is clearly controversial but RDAB appears to be less so even though it is still controversial. CHEAP is also an essay which has existed longer which has also been used by numerous people and IDONTLIKEIT which I don't think apples here is also one.
Yes that is a reason against it but many CSD criteria are also somewhat controversial. If there is a weak consensus it may be useful to have it.
Such templates are used on redirects but redirects with implausible or malformatted qualifiers are also commonly deleted at RFD.
Though policies and guidelines are stronger arguments as noted essays can still be used to argue things on Wikipedia. In any case as noted both the 2022 and 2024 RFDs neither of which were started by me resulted in a consensus to delete. You don't have to agree with that consensus and are free to argue against it but to claim IDONTLIKEIT in face of those RFDs seems a bit odd.
The main arguments you and Thryduulf have presented are direct URL entering and the fact people have thought it necessary to create them but as noted it doesn't appear readers are likely to find them useful due to the qualifiers being WP specific and the way the search box goes. Though I would say its hard to provide evidence either way though I accept incoming links is evidence of this. I'd also give more weight to what users who use/participate in the DAB fixing tools than what I think and as noted multiple such people have complained about them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: An essay that has been endorsed by the majority of people – Citation needed.
I actually didn't mention the URL stuff. I said that it's easily possible, and likely that it happens all the time, where one user is typing and holds the shift button a little too long when adding a bracket, only to accidentally capitalize the first letter of the disambiguator. I have also said that I fail to see how these are harmful redirects. As we've also repeatedly mentioned when you bring up the search, the auto fill and drop down of options when you've partially typed in the search box doesn't work in every scenario, as you're suggesting. As such, it's then easy to see how a redirect from a typo / miscapitalization could be useful.
I keep going back to IDONTLIKEIT because the focus of this discussion has been largely on the content of an essay that doesn't make any argument for why the redirects are harmful or detrimental. If there isn't an argument besides an essay and "they were deleted before", then that's IDONTLIKEIT.
I'd also give more weight to what users who use/participate in the DAB fixing tools than what I think and as noted multiple such people have complained about them. – Do you give weight to the people who review the redirects? I see alternative capitalization all the time, and when it's just on the first letter of a word I always mark it as reviewed for the reason that it could be helpful to someone.
Franky I don't care at all about PANDORA in this situation. As an NPP coordinator / the leading redirect reviewer since over the past year and a half, I can attest that it's no extra work for reviewers (alt capitalizations are already auto reviewed) and we could ask Anome to have their bot auto create these like they do for titles with an en dash in the (the redirects they create use hyphens).
In short, the alternative capitalization of the first letter is harmless, it's possibly useful, and it's not an improvement to the Wiki to delete these. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Directet URL entry is simply one example of a case-sensitive method of navigating Wikipedia, it is not the only one. Many of these redirects have non-trivial numbers of page views, which is objectively evidence of them being used and, given they lead unambiguously to the only correct target, evidence of utility.
If there is a weak consensus it may be useful to have [a CSD criterion]. is absolutely incorrect. CSD is explicitly only for the most obvious cases where everything that could be deleted by a criterion should be deleted, according to consensus. Situations where the is only a weak consensus at best cannot meet those requirements. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh and Thryduulf: I don't know a huge amount about how DAB fixes work and how these interfere with it but User:Certes does appear to so may be able to explain better. In terms of caring about readers (or editors) using the redirects I'd argue its more confusing to have such redirects for a small number than not at all and if we thought such redirects were useful we would just get a bot to create all of them meaning such searches would always work rather than working in a small number of cases similar to the comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24#Absolutely every malformed disambiguation without parentheses. So if we care about people being able to use such redirects why not do it for all. Personally I'm normally an inclusionist but I think such redirects are outside that, on a similar note just because I think its a good idea to have a separate article on every municipality and census settlement and even other settlements doesn't mean I would think its a good idea to have an article on every farm or building. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, because there's not enough of the redirects of this style you're arguing it's more confusing? We could easily request AnomieBot be configured to create these types of redirects. As for the linked AfD, that's an entirely different set of potential disambiguations which are less likely than the likely possibility of accidently using an alternative capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think helping people find the page they are looking for on some occasions is much better than going out of our way to never help them, but if creating a "(Disambiguation)" redirect to match every "(disambiguation)" page or redirect is what it takes to stop making the encyclopaedia harder to navigate then let's just do that. As for the linked RfD, you will see that I argued to keep those that are navigationally useful so I'm not sure why you think that example of OTHERSTUFF is helpful to your argument? Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixing is needed after an editor links to a dab such as Mercury when they meant Mercury (planet). Very occasionally, we really do want a link to the dab. (For other uses, see Mercury). To mark such cases so we don't keep checking them repeatedly, we apply WP:INTDAB and link to [[Mercury (disambiguation)|Mercury]]. Experienced dab fixers know to skip such links, and so do tools which produce reports such as Disambiguation pages with links. They don't skip (Disambiguation), (DISAMBIGUATION) or (Disrandomtypotion), so links to such redirects would have to be checked again and again. Eventually, they would mount up and dwarf the actual errors. At that point, we would have no alternative but to give up and just leave all the bad links for our readers to follow. In fact, if (Disambiguation) redirects are created systematically, I for one will see no point in continuing this work and will give up immediately. Certes (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Yes I know you !voted to keep but Josh !voted to delete which is who I was asking that particular question to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes alternatively, the tools could just be adjusted so they don't mark "(Disambiguation)" etc as errors - indeed as they aren't errors they shouldn't marked as such at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except capitalisation of first letter, so I think this should be reworded to exclude that if it passes. As countless RfDs leading to WP:SNOW-level deletions (and amusing the daily logs to become massive) have shown, these redirects are completely unnecessary, unhelpful to the point that they are WP:COSTLY and should not exist, and they have clogged up the RfD log from discussions many times in the past. Therefore, this speedy deletion category is needed so that these can be deleted efficiently without wasting time or space at RfD. However, unlike the redirect types outlined at WP:RDAB and the other categories, there is a small chance that redirects with the alternate capitalisation can be useful. Even though this chance is small, I still think it is enough to justify a full discussion at RfD rather than speedy deletion. Leaving only this type of redirect for RfD is not enough to clog the daily log up with discussions, so I see this arrangement as a win-win where the unhelpful, unnecessary WP:RDAB-type redirects are speedily deleted as they should while redirects with a small chance of usefulness get a full RfD discussion without filling the log up with discussions. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think at least some (if not all) of the text currently at WP:RDAB should be added to the speedy deletion criterion definition to specify which types of redirects fall under this criterion to avoid confusion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If first-letter capitalization (Foo (Disambiguation)) is excluded, then no evidence has been presented that this happens at all, let alone frequently enough. And Foo (desambiguation) is either an R3 or needs more than one pair of eyes anyway. No argument to answer. —Cryptic 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the case for first-letter capitalization can't be made; there's been 763 such deletions ever, with more than half on two days in late 2022. It's not because they're not being deleted, either, since only four such pages currently exist. (Ø (Disambiguation) isn't a disambig.) This isn't remotely frequent enough to need a speedy deletion criterion. It's frequent enough for another batch rfd in another twenty years. —Cryptic 13:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ø (Disambiguation) is a IAR exception, notorious amongst dab maintainers for coming up as a false positive whenever we check for dodgy titles. Unsurprisingly, there are no pages with a qualifier of (DISAMBIGUATION) in all capitals. Certes (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is rare for people to capitalise "Disambiguation" or said word in all caps. "desambiguation" is a typo that would obviously be qualified for R3 anyways. Toadette(Let's talk together!) 10:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things that are rare fail WP:NEWCSD requirement 3. Also "rare" is not the same thing as "harmful". Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already have criteria for the most obvious misspelling issues, redirects are cheap, deleting a redirect using other than CSD isn't exactly a burden on the system. I don't see this as solving a real issue, but it could cause some. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thryduulf and Dennis Brown. R3 suffices for most cases, and the rest can go to RfD. This is simply not a significant problem. – bradv 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support these routinely get deleted at RfD; there is no reason to have the same debate 1000 times when the merits remain the same every single time. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: gods, are we still arguing about this? Per Thryduulf and my previous comments. These rarely do any harm. Cremastra (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, aren't we discussing something similar above? It feels like this proposal should have been incorporated into that RfC, perhaps as a secondary question. Regardless, support; there is consensus from countless RfD discussions, not merely from the wording at RDAB, that these redirects are not helpful and should be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are properly separate because they deal with different things, only one of which meets the requirements for a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be okay with this if we limit it to recently created redirects (similar to how A10 and R3 are limited to recently created redirects). Without this qualification, I oppose the change. For redirects that have existed a long time, the small maintenance benefit of deleting them doesn't outweigh the risk of breaking incoming external links (WP:RFD#KEEP point 4). —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi. I'm proposing that a new criteria be added for speedy deletion of drafts, which are duplicated by an existing, rejected draft. Any thoughts? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SRE. Rejected draft? Redirect to the rejected draft. Do not review, using AfC tools or otherwise, a content fork. If your redirecting is reverted, take it to MfD. Only MfD could generate compelling data to support a WP:NEWCSD for draftspace, like it did for G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others here. Redirecting requires no criterion and usually works. Same for drafts that duplicate an existing article (and are not someone actively working on an improvement to that article). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't necessary. If it's a duplicate of another draft just redirect or merge them, if it's a duplicate of an article (and not an attempt to improve it) then redirect to that article. If it's actively causing problems for some reason, and doesn't somehow meet an existing criterion, then explain that at MfD. In every other case, doing anything other than waiting for G13 is a waste of time and effort. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Imagine that I create User talk:Nyttend/subpage. Assuming that there's no problem with the content I put on the page, it's a perfectly fine page; we wouldn't delete it on G8 merely because User:Nyttend/subpage doesn't exist. Now, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with problematic content, e.g. blatant spam. Someone comes around and deletes it. Should the talk page be deleted (because it's the talk page of a deleted page), or should it remain (because it's a valid subpage in userspace), or is this something we should just leave up to admin judgement?
Also, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with the content #REDIRECT ebwtriypnry0tiw5mr4te5, or I create the page with valid content and then replace it with the broken redirect. G8 (redirect to nonexistent page), or keep (established user's subpage), or admin judgement?
This just now came to mind as I was deleting spam in userspace; I deleted User talk:BassettHousePic/sandbox after deleting User:BassettHousePic/sandbox, and I'm not sure this is always right. Here it was (the user's been spamblocked and has no other edits), but that won't always be the case, especially if the userpage is deleted via U1. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually end up deleting the user talk subpages, and mostly consider it a bug that the "G8: Talk page of a deleted page" option doesn't appear in the deletion dropdown and that there isn't a link to the talk page from the post-deletion screen. I guess the distinction is that User talk:Nyttend/Archive 42 is primarily a subpage of User talk:Nyttend; while User talk:Nyttend/spam sandbox, which typically consists of wikiproject templates from the article creation wizard, would primarily be the talk page of User:Nyttend/spam sandbox.For a U1, or other ambiguous cases where the deletion would be unobjectionable to the page owner, I'd probably leave a note on their talk page or maybe in the deletion log to ask for deletion of the user talk subpage separately if desired. It hasn't come up. —Cryptic 00:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd perhaps say user talk pages should be an exception (as opposed to only archives of talk pages) to G8. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my impression has always been that "User talk pages" in the "not eligible for G8" list only applies to the main user talk page and equivalents, i.e User talk:Nyttend, but not automatically every talk page of a page in the user namespace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's always been my impression too. Obviously there will be some exceptions (e.g. a theoretical user talk:Thryduulf/Subpage/Archive 1) that require admin discretion. The easiest (but non-ideal) ways to resolve this are probably using the {{G8-exempt}} template proactively, and having a very low bar to restoration when asked. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure for rejected draftified articles and declined/rejected AfC submissions improperly moved or copies to mainspace[edit]
So, this is something I've seen happen in some cases, usually involving inexperienced editors who have just gotten autoconfirmed.
First there is the instance I've dealt with, where an article is draftified (when I've done it, it's usually for lacking references) and the author immediately recreates it by either moving it or, more often, by copy-paste. I haven't seen an exact consensus on what to do in this instance. Some have said db-copypaste might apply, but not all admins will delete in this instance. The other options would be re-draftify, PROD, or AfD.
The other instance would be declined or rejected AfC submissions that are moved or copied to mainspace without improvement. My understanding is that declined AfC pages that are resubmitted without improvement are usually summarily declined. If a submission is declined multiple times, that would indicate consensus that the page, in its present state, is unsuitable to be an article, putting it in a similar position to a page that meets G4. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think straight to AfD is usually the right choice. If it has already been moved to mainspace after a decline, there's strong reason to believe a prod would be contested. And as a contested deletion, it's not really a good candidate for a speedy deletion. That said, AfD is not mandatory. It happens that the draft reviewer can be wrong. Only take to AfD if you still believe it is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate since AfD takes up a lot more editor time than CSD. Quick question on that. At which point does contesting a deletion count? Since I've seen plenty of authors go for the "contest deletion" option on G11, U5, and at least one A7 but it's ignored by the deleting admin. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to delete as much stuff in as little editor time as we can, but to make proper decisions on whether something is or is not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. G11 and A7 are also possible speedies for some drafts moved to mainspace, but not valid for many of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I thought that a draft that has been declined or rejected (especially multiple times) might be sufficiently unsuitable for mainspace to be speedily deleted. I had been tentatively floating the idea of whether a new CSD criterion might be established for this instance, though it seems like that sort of criterion wouldn't work at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Draftspace and AfC are optional. If someone moves a page from draft to article space that doesn't meet an existing speedy deletion criterion, but you believe should be deleted then PROD and AfD are your only options. AfC rejections represent the opinion of the reviewer(s), not consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
