Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Merge closes

I have been working through the merge backlog (over 240 when I started, some over 2 years old). The last few I have done I have basically ended up just redirecting. Generally these are poorly sourced articles that have been closed as merge (most with no indication of what should be merged) into a well developed and sourced article that either covers the topic already or has no obvious place to put it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AliEn (ALICE Environment), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient & Honorable Order of Turtles Inc., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Blackness in the U.S., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hitchcock Edition Clue for ones that ended up basically being redirected (I did merge information from the turtle article, but with some reservations).

Even if the majority !vote merge the best outcome might still be redirect. I think that when closing a AFD, closers should consider weighting a merge !vote that doesn't indicate what should be merged closer to a redirect !vote (see Wikipedia:Merge what? for an essay on the issue). What do editors think off adding something to this effect at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Other outcomes or another appropriate place? AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This could potentially create a slippery slope, whereby articles that actually have mergeable content end up just being redirected, with the potential of nobody ever actually merging the content per a lack of tags directing such activity ({{Afd-merge from}}, {{Afd-merge to}}). I have merged many articles that were closed at AfD as merge but ended up just being redirected, per WP:PRESERVE. I sometimes wonder if the merges would have ever occurred if I had not performed them. Chances are that many would not have. Also, sometimes people who opine for deletion will then just redirect after an AfD discussion has been closed as merge, stating that there's nothing mergeable, when actually this is sometimes not the case, sometimes even blatantly so. This may occur at times as a sort of consolation when a desired delete result does not occur at deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Slippery slope fallacies aside, if articles have mergeable content then editors should be able to say what is mergeable. If someone says keep (or delete) without a reason then those are giving (or so we are told) low weight, so I feel merge !vote without specifying what is to be merged is should be given the same. AIRcorn (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, if there is a lack of clarity, a relist with an invitation to participants to specify what is to be merge would help things along? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example from today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KT Kumho Rent A Car, closed by Yamamoto Ichiro. Consensus is clearly for a merge, but it was closed as redirect for whatever reasons. I think this should have been closed with a merge result. That said, I could have been more specific in my !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The only reason why I've closed that as a redirect is because in my interpretation, merge and redirect are simply the same thing. If there's anything to be merged, an editor familiar with the subject at hand can go through the page history and do the merge from the article that was changed to a redirect. Most of the time, a closing admin will not be familiar with the subject matter to do the merge correctly. I guess next time I could add, consensus is redirect and merge if applicable to make it clear Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to put you on the spot, but the close does come across as a WP:SUPERVOTE in some manners, and also per your comment above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

One would think leaving the important decision of what to merge up to the editors rather than the closing admin would be anything but WP:SUPERVOTE Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:MERGE and WP:REDIRECT are actually quite distinct on Wikipedia; certainly not the same thing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why it was closed as Redirect and even more lost with the "Redirect and Merge" ... anywho obvious consensus is to Merge so ... If you cannot understand the difference between Merge and Redirect then you shouldn't be an admin. –Davey2010^Talk 15:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think at this point we're just arguing semantics. In the context of a deletion discussion, merge and redirect is the same thing, as in the article is not deleted. AfD is not a suitable way to discuss redirect/merge details because, AfD is where we discuss deletions, not editorial stuff like merges. One could argue all merge/redirect votes should just be considered to be the same thing, and be closed as such. There is no reason for AfD closing admin to do merges personally, unless they know how to merge the content at hand. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - Merge and Redirect are completely different, When It's being discussed at AFD then every option can be discussed and should be discussed ...., AFD closers don't physically Merge the content - That's up to the nominators/!voters - You close the AFD, Mergeto templates get added - Job done, If you are lost with the whole AFD thing then why are you closing AFDs ?, As I said on your talkpage you need to take a step back otherwise you could end up blocked, desysoped or whatever, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This has gone on a bit off a tangent, but I think this is something that needs to be discussed more as a general principle. Yamamoto Ichiro's action resemble a proposal I wanted to test the waters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#AFDs closed as merge. No response there, which is a shame as it would be good to hear from others that actually do the merges. Judging by the activity, backlogs and previous discussions that project is not very active so I may start a new similar discussion below this one. AIRcorn (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn - We could just hat most of the above ? (I know my comments here haven't helped whatsoever so I don't really have an issue with mine being hatted), That aside Personally I think if an AFD's closed as Merge and the article seems relevent and helpful to a normal reader then I do agree tt should be Merged but if contains useless crap like for instance one liners or whatever then Redirect is IMHO better, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I would rather this not be hatted. I think it would be useful in the proposal I am developing, not in a bad way, just as evidence that this is an issue worth discussion. As far as merges go I have my own set of personal criteria, that I don't think are codified anywhere, but seem like common sense to me. Basically, I avoid merging anything that is unsourced or IMO poorly sourced, I avoid merging anything into well developed articles (especially any good or featured ones) and I avoid merging anything that I poorly understand. I will sometimes leave a talk page note on the target article if I am just redirecting. I have to shoot off to work now, but will research and write up more later today. AIRcorn (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We do already have a comment at the "merge" common outcome to the tune of "Merge votes should be specific and clear." I think this would support the general rule for merges without specifics to be considered as plain redirects. Alternatively, we can add something like "If no merge !votes are specific enough to execute a merge quickly, then the closer should consider pinging those !voters who !voted to merge to provide specifics." This may be getting too much into the nitty gritty of the "Closing XFD discussions" pages. --Izno (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording change

After reading the above I thought I would make a specific proposal for a word change. I think we should keep it relatively short and the aim should ultimately be to encourage better !votes and closes. Maybe more specifics about relisting, pinging etc should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Relisting AfDs

Current wording:

This combines two separate pages into a single page. Merge votes should be specific and clear. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page.

Proposed wording (changed sentence highlighted her but would not be in the final version):

This combines two separate pages into a single page. Non-specific and unclear merge votes may be weighted towards redirect votes by the closer. If you wish to merge templates or categories, use the deletion discussions. If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page.

AIRcorn (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: No one has responded against my specific proposal for over 10 days. Would you like to propose some different wording or a reason why we should not be encouraging merge voters to clarify their position. AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the change (diff) because it came across as unilateral, particularly per the discussion above. Pinging users who have contributed to this discussion: @Malcolmxl5, Yamamoto Ichiro, Davey2010, and Izno:. For starters, sometimes users in AfD discussions will provide very explicit merge rationales, and then others will then provide simple concurring !votes (e.g. "merge per ___". While detailed rationales are preferred, sometimes people do not provide them, deferring to a detailed rationale already provided. I'm also concerned about the notion of consensus in AfD discussions being trumped by the addition of a few extra words to the Deletion process page. As I stated above, I've come across (and merged) many articles that closed at AfD with a clear merge result, but were then only redirected, sometimes by the nominator, perhaps as a "consolation prize" when the nomination failed. Ultimately, your addition of "Non-specific and unclear merge votes may be weighted towards redirect votes by the closer" is not backed with any consensus here, appears to be based upon your opinion on how closers may assess discussions, and creates a slippery slope. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I always understood the per votes to be basically duplications of the vote that they are referring to (obviously with any caveats or additions they might add), be they keep, merge, delete or other. So if the original vote has a strong (or even decent) rational then so do the per votes. If it doesn't then they don't either.

I am not trying to trump anything, I am just trying to encourage voters to make the job of the editors making the merges easier. I have come across many selectively merge any relevant content type votes where a reading of both articles shows that there is none. It tends to suggest that some editors vote merge without actually looking at the target article.

I did not read any consensus against this change and as no one responded to my specific proposal, despite this being a well watched page, I was well within my rights to make the change. Also without going too far off track I find arguments based on slippery slopes are very weak indeed. They basically mean nothing should ever be changed as everything can lead to everything and are a well known fallacy. AIRcorn (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I should note that I have made some major changes at the WP:Merge What? essay, including the pinging and relisting advice above. AIRcorn (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The notion of wanting to just encourage !voters to be make the job easier for users that perform merges is fine, but doing so by stating that inspecific merge !votes may be disqualified in favor of a redirect WP:SUPERVOTE per the closer's preference is not the way of going about it, in my opinion. One slippery slope example is illustrated below:

Closed as redirect. Closer.

• Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Nominator.

• Merge to foo
• Merge per above
• Merge per above
• Merge per above
• Merge per above... etc.

The potential slippery slope is ignoring consensus even when inspecific merge !votes are present. To close this with a redirect result would go against consensus, constituting a supervote. Another slippery slope is that if such a discussion was closed as redirect, and a user later came along and performed a merge, they could be reverted because the supervote closed the discussion as redirect, despite consensus for a merge. Yet another problem is the potential for edit warring per such outcomes; "consensus was for a merge!", countered by reversions stating "the discussion was closed as redirect", ad infinitum. Also, guideline pages were developed through the process of discussion and consensus, and I feel that this unilateral change is debatable from the start, and even more so because nobody has provided any input after your new proposal was stated above. As per WP:BRD, I reverted your bold edit and am discussing the matter here. Per all of this and even more problems that can occur as a result of this change, I oppose this change to the page North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I will talk more about slippery slopes at your talk page as that is becoming a bit off tangent. I am confident most wikipedians know the issues with using this argument. My own thinking is that a redirect is in many cases a bold merge, just one where there is no new information worth merging in. I have run across many cases where the article to be merged contains no sourced information,[1][2] consisted of just tables[3] or information that when merged creates undue problems,[4][5][6] articles where the information does not fit at all,[7] or makes the article worse,[8] articles that I can not even fathom how to complete the merge[9][10][11] and articles where the information is already present sufficiently that no merging is necessary.[12]

Anyway my main aim in this area is to change the culture of !voting merge without considering the consequences and this discussion is at least doing that. Even if only a few closers who watch this page think twice before closing a discussion as merge then I would be happy. I believe many of these above problems would be avoided if editors just looked at the target article and thought:

• How would this information fit?
• Will it make this article better?

Your above example is a pretty common pattern of voting. However, I would consider a redirect outcome as perfectly valid from that discussion, but the closer should have explained their decision better. For example "Subject does not meet our notability criteria for a standalone article and the merge votes have not provided any specific information about what should be merged. Closing as redirect". From the discussions above a better response would have been the closer relisting and then leaving a comment asking for more information on what needs to be merged[13] or pinging the mergers.[14] It is also conceivable that a closer could close that as delete since all the merge !votes are simply just votes and closers are meant to weigh arguments, not count votes. It would probably require a better opening statement from the nominator, but it is a possibility. AIRcorn (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Per my rationales above; this opens the door to ambiguous and problematic WP:SUPERVOTE discussion closures, which can create several problems. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction between WP:NACD and WP:RMNAC

I have noticed this issue for a while, so I'd like to propose an update to the section at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (WP:NACD) to match the non-admin deletion process stated at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure (WP:RMNAC). I propose that this page be updated to state that non-admin closures at Wikipedia:Requested moves that require the page be moved over a redirect that needs to be deleted be allowed. This is how WP:RMNAC is essentially worded, so here is the text I propose be added to the section WP:NACD redirects:

Exception: A non-administrator may close a Requested move discussion to "move" if the move requires that a redirect be deleted in order to perform the move. (See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closures.)

--Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be better just to say "there are exceptions; please see these pages". That avoids duplication. --Izno (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amakuru#Neutral for the context of this request. WP:NACD and WP:RMNAC both seem straightforward. It's WP:BADNAC that needs to be edited, as it conflicts with the instructions given at WP:RMNAC. Note that a move is not a deletion, and the two processes have different rules. WP:BADNAC conflates the two, which is causing a contradiction. Bradv 20:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A deletion is a deletion (the scope of this page), regardless if the discussion is actually about deleting the nomimated page, but rather a different page that needs to be deleted to complete the close's result. So, Izno's idea seems feasible. As a result, WP:BADNAC could be updated as well. The goal is to remove all contradictions, and the one here is a major one of the bunch. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This page is about deletion discussions, not just deletions in general. Bradv 20:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence on this page, The deletion process encompasses the processes involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to delete or keep pages and media., doesn't clarify that this doesn't apply to WP:RM. In a move request, the community may form a decision to delete a page to move another page to it. It's in scope of this page, and saying that this information proposed above should not be included because the scope of this page clearly doesn't include RM is a bit misleading, especially to those who do not completely understand Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with the "there are exceptions; please see these pages" approach. Way too many policypages already contain duplicate information, and it has a pesky tendency to POVFORK over time. This can create very nasty messes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Anchor in heading

@JJMC89: Hello. In revision 730386650, you've written "{{anchor}} shouldn't be used in headings".

Why? And says who?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: From Template:Anchor#Limitations: If the template is added to a section title then the code will appear in the edit summary window when that section is edited, as in "/* {{anchor|Issues}}Limitations */ New issue". Also, when the section is saved, browsers may not return to the section. Consider using <span id="..."></span> directly, rather than using the anchor template, when in a section title. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

DREADFULLY unclear and unhelpful article

I want to nominate an article for speedy deletion. I am looking for the procedure for this. I don't have time to become an expert on Wikipedia. I have commented on the article's Talk page of my intention. Grounds for the dfeletion are Wikipedia's standing as a reliable resource. Please see Talk page for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heterotelergone#Nominate_for_DELETION. Over to you cogniscenti out there. LookingGlass (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD voting templates

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD voting templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding upgrading the Wikipedia:Non-admin closure essay to a guideline

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.

---

The Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is an oft-quoted essay amongst editors frequenting deletion discussions. The discussions about upgrading this to an essay perhaps first took place in the year 2008 and ended with no consensus to upgrade the same; one reason was the instruction creep within the current essay. Another reason was that the essay, at least in the opinion of some, had a few statements that went against current policy.

• Should the Wikipedia:Non-admin closure essay be upgraded to guideline status, with the community working on the essay thereon to reduce the instruction creep and modifying any statements imminently conflicting with current deletion policy?

Thanks for the time. Lourdes 03:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes/No/Any suggestions would be welcome

• Yes In my opinion, this is a viable option, provided the community puts some time into the essay and cleans it off material conflicting with current policies or guidelines. Thanks. Lourdes 03:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Moral yes but realistic no for now. I'd rather have a large discussion cleaning it up on that essay's talk page right now. We shouldn't approve this as a guideline before going through it comprehensively. Hell, there's a discussion right now about changing something. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• It should, yes, but I fear it may not be perfect yet. I think it has excellent advice, to a reasonable reading, but it may need carefully generalisation, or definition, for applicable to all XfD processes, plus DRV, as well as RM and MR, and maybe even better, to RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes but I would like a comprehensive run through for clarifications before it is granted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• No, on the basis that I still think that the closure of admin-related discussions should be done by admins. The fact that RfA is broken means that it should be fixed, not the rest of the project modified to create a "two-tier" system of users, where non-admins which could have easily passed RfA in 2005 must be supervised by admins from 2005 as some sort of quality control. I will commend the authors of this essay for not explicitly allowing admin overturning of an NAC because it's done by a non-admin, but things like tagging (NAC) after the close would still be done I assume. No thanks. Make most of 'em sysops, I say. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ajraddatz: The reality is that most non-admin closers, even competent ones, either (a) won't pass RfA, many because they aren't interested in content creation, or; (b) aren't interested in RfA, because of how toxic/demotivating it can be. It just takes a quick glance at our RfA numbers this year (the worst ever!) to see that this may not be a viable solution. We may be stuck in a situation where the people opposing RfAs think we should just have non-admin closures, and the people supporting RfAs think we should have more admins. Since the bar of consensus at an RfA is much higher than at an RfC, there's a lot of overlap there where we're stuck in limbo with the worst possible solution – no non-admin closure guideline and no additional admins. What then? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think we'll get to the worst case scenario. We're at a point where almost everyone agrees that RfA in its current form is broken. That's a recipe for change! I wouldn't want to waste it by creating additional bureaucratic rules to accommodate not having more admins. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:CREEP. I've seen a prediction that Wikipedia will fossilise as it gets increasing tied up in red tape so that no-one can do anything. This seems to be coming true so it's time to roll back this trend. I attended an editathon yesterday where we were trying to train up some new users. They were quite a worthy crowd; fairly smart and keen. But one of the main outcomes was that the organiser got blocked by an over-zealous admin. And I expect that most of the recruits will be defeated by the mountain of bureaucracy that they now have to climb. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"the organiser got blocked "?! Tell us more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Username violation Special:Log/WienerLibraryWIR Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I quite agree with your argument, Andrew. It would be much easier for new users to understand how our admin-related discussions work if it is just admins closing them. But I'm afraid that I can't let your comment here stand without pointing out how many RfAs you oppose these days. I'd be glad to walk you through how to use the sysop tools someday on a test wiki, to show you that it isn't a big deal and that you don't need to oppose absolutely everyone :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Time, as usual for me to get on my high horse: I wish we didn't even have the concept of a non-admin closure. Non-admins should be able to close any discussion at any time without fear of having their judgement called into question. Non-admin closures are not substandard, and not to be "flagged" as such by anyone as though because an "admin" didn't close the discussion, it is somehow less valid. If it doesn't involve a block, a deletion, a page protection, or changing permission flags (which is all admins can do that others cannot) then it shouldn't be off-limits for anyone. The idea that non-admins have to self-identify when closing discussions, or that people should have the right to question a closure merely because the person who closed it doesn't have the admin bit, is abhorrant to all that Wikipedia is. --Jayron32 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: Oddly, I simultaneously consider myself one of the more supportive editors of non-admin closures in the past and one of the most critical editors of them recently. The problem is that non-admins are generally not great at identifying when a close may be within their technical ability but only if they close in a specific way, even though the discussion could sensibly be closed an alternative way that's outside their technical ability. This leads to bias. See my writings on this topic at WP:Relist bias. On the other hand, I don't think non-admins should need to self-identify, and I've pushed for admins to be able to close all discussions at TfD and CfD, where the next step doesn't involve deletion itself. I think we'll always need the idea of a non-admin closure, but only because some non-admins don't do it well. There are several non-admin closers who I would trust to close discussions without any oversight or guidance, because they know to stay away from the ones where their lack of tools will influence their decision. But the set of non-admin closers I trust to do that will never be the set of all non-admin closers. I don't think the bias issue is something that can be swept away easily. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • There are lots of admins who also make bad calls on closures. --Jayron32 16:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the fundamental principle you're getting at – and one I agree with – is that, when challenging a non-admin closure, the challenger needs to present an argument against the merits of the closure itself; a closure should never be overturned on the sole basis that the closer was not an administrator. But Rob is right that the lack of tools does bias non-admins, which is part of the reason why non-admins shouldn't be closing complicated discussions: they often involve weighing between an option they can implement and an option they can't. Mz7 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Lourdes and Iazyges: Based on how these discussions tend to go, I really don't think this is going to pass. I'll leave it up to you, certainly, but I think this should be withdrawn. If this is pushed forward, it will likely not reach the bar to become a guideline and the community will have no appetite to reconsider in the near future. Instead, we could go to the talk page and give this potential guideline the thorough once-over that we all agree it needs before bringing this to the attention of the community. I can't give more than a moral support sight-unseen as to what the revisions it may need will be, and I strongly suspect enough editors will feel the same way that it's worthwhile revising the essay now rather than later. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• meh I don't think it would be a bad idea to have an official guideline on NACs, but this essay as it currently exists isn't it. I would say shelve this proposal and fix the essay first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• BU Rob13, I'm fine with what you write. Let's archive this and take this up on the talk page of NAC and improve it. Thanks. Lourdes 01:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lourdes: Given your comments, I've boldly removed the {{rfc}} template. Feel free to revert if you want the RfC to continue. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2016 (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.

This page is listed as a candidate for speedy deletion - why?

For some reason this talk page is listed at the category Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages. I can't figure out why. Can anyone locate whatever anomaly here is causing that listing, and fix it? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Bradv 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Good eye! --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Search broken

The Search all deletion discussions function just keeps saying "An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length." Oktalist (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Q about the current setup. Can we easily, button-push search 9 or 18 pages about deletion

• WP:Articles for deletion
• WP:Stub types for deletion
• WP:Miscellany for deletion
• WP:Deletion review
• WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting

and about copyright WP:Copyright problems and about discussion

• WP:Categories for discussion
• WP:Redirects for discussion
• WP:Templates for discussion

for any phrase of interest, say an article title?

A No. But on the actual page of interest, where we have the template that posts its review status, we can easily integrate three search links into it

• discussion
• deletion
• copyright

Then mention this here for reviewers to go there and use the three search links. Those search links are here, so they look for this page Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. They work there to find all mentions of themselves in the WP or WT namespaces or archive subpages. Three search links, one for each intitle parameter, each searching two namespaces for the fullpagename, up to 100 results on one page.

Why? (Besides the char cnt limit), CirrusSearch intitle parameter does not currently recognize OR. InputBox is not currently able to wrap or glue the query terms we need.

I will replace the misinformation after implementing the template changes. — Cpiral§Cpiral 05:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So many templates Too many changes. (See scores of 'em at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion, Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, and Wikipedia:Template messages/General.) Search links on the page of interest might be best for all concerned, but other ideas are

1. Delete the Search all deletion discussions section?
2. Put some new instructions there instead: how to use the search link?
3. Provide for a template on the page of interest: A new template, {{search-afd}}? A changed {{Search deletion discussions}} template? One of these would provide temporary search links there if simply previewed, but permanent if transcluded.

Most of the notices naturally point to a discussion page. But also having a search showing all mentions of the page in project space is a good idea. — Cpiral§Cpiral 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Revising WP:NPASR and renominations by the same nominator

A look at the history of the WP:NOQUORUM WP:NPASR shows that it has been there a long time.  I would say that the original purpose no longer exists.

There is a competing long-standing idea that renominations after a no-consensus close should wait for two months.  We recently had a renomination take place after a month and a half, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UrbanClap_(4th_nomination) that received broad objection.

There is a idea new to me recently proposed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20 by User:Knowledgekid87 to change WP:NPASR to say, "no prejudice against speedy renomination by someone other than the original nominator (NPASR)."  This has broad applicability for relist problems that have been around for a long time.  But, I don't think that this should apply to WP:NPASR, and I am proposing a different fix below.

WP:NPASR remains an important concept for procedural closures, but even there a problem exists if a review goes to DRV and someone is already starting a new discussion.  And commonly for speedy closes, it is expected that the same nominator is empowered to improve and renominate.

In the midst of all these issues, I propose moving WP:NPASR out into its own section, and allow a WP:NOQUORUM No-consensus to default to an expectation of two months before renominating.  The other issues here would need separate discussions. 

Proposal

Create new section below WP:NOQUORUM, removing the existing NPASR text from WP:NOQUORUM

=== NPASR ===

{{Shortcut|NPASR}}

NPASR means "no prejudice against speedy renomination".

Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Quite the contrary, there appears to be broad consensus just above here on this very page to close these as soft deletion. Obviously, oppose this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: In regards to the word "contrary", there is nothing "contrary" to be seen.  If you want to rewrite WP:NOQUORUM, you can't delete WP:NPASR, as it is a widely used acronym and needs to be defined somewhere, so this proposal doesn't conflict with changes to WP:NOQUORUM involving PROD.  Please state a problem that has more detail than "obviously".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Above, there is support that instead of NPASR closes, we should generally see soft deletion in cases of low participation. Here, you're suggesting we require or expect (It's unclear which?) two months after an NPASR close before deletion can again be considered. The former pushes deletion closer to the present, and the latter pushes deletion farther into the future. These outcomes are at odds with each other. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I do not wish to be flaked by merely following existing guidelines any longer. Proposal on its own also sounds perfectly reasonable. You have my support. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't do fixed time periods on anything. This is too bureaucratic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support instead refining the meaning or NPASR to mean "by another editor". Closing "noquorum" only to see the original nominator and sole participant immediately renominate is obviously an absurdity. It was implied by commonsense, but now is worth documenting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per both Rob13 and Spartaz, who are more concise than I would be. >;-) As someone who wanders into AfD instead of dwelling in it (i.e., as an average editor), it doesn't matter one whit to me who nominated something at that XfD or any other, only the pro and con arguments are of import.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - In the example given where there was an objection after the same person renominated after a month and a half, the previous AfD was not closed as NPASR -- it was simply no consensus (with participation). If it were NPASR, it's pretty common, in my experience, for the nominator to turn around and renominate it without pushback (although many encourage waiting in such a scenario). If someone did so for a third time, it might start to attract sideways glances, but I haven't encountered that. Regardless, no problem with someone renominating in the case of an NPASR. No comment at this time regarding whether a different person should nominate following a no consensus with participation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTBURO and the false premise uncovered by Rhododendrites. ansh666 19:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• False premise?  What are you talking about?  NPASR is 0 months, and the example I gave is 1 1/2 months.  0 months is not the community norm for a no consensus discussion, and the original reason for the no consensus noquoroum to be NPASR (IMO) no longer exists.  How is eliminating an obsolete practice that competes with and confounds an established practice, bureaucracy?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand this response, but to clarify, the false premise Ansh666 refers to is that in this section you linked to a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination), which, given the context, seemed to be offered as an example of an AfD renominated after NPASR (or otherwise of unknown relevance to the present discussion). It was not, however, renominated after an NPASR close, but a no consensus close. Hence it it doesn't make sense as an anecdote to build an NPASR-related proposal on. NPASR is only when there isn't a quorum -- in that case, there was plenty of participation to establish a quorum, hence no npasr. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is a discussion of normative behavior for "no-consensus" AfDs, as specifically applied to noquorum no-consensus closes.  I established at the start of my argument that the current reason for having noquorum no-consensus NPASR is obsolete.  Please reread the development of the discussion; verify the history; and include that knowledge, or my opinion of that knowledge, in your analysis. 

  I also established that we have two community standards for no-consensus re-nominations, and the result is whiplash for those who get caught in the competing rules.  I established that there is community sentiment to fix the problem, which appears in the title of the discussion.  I established in the example which caught your attention, that the default community norm for no-consensus renominations is and remains at two months.  As for the "anecdotal" issue, the AfD that started this discussion is an NPASR, and you have the links to that AfD.  So I have also given an example of NPASR. 

  If you want to come up with new justification for having noquorum no-consensus NPASR; please also address the issues of competing community standards, and the need to retain NPASR unchanged for procedural closes which allow a re-nominator to fix errors in the previous AfD.  Further, please address the issue of the need to break out NPASR from its current location.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to be a bit confused, normal "no consensus" and "NPASR" are not the same thing. ansh666 08:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Ansh666: No, you can look at the Project Page, and see that No Quorum#No Consensus is tied to "WP:NPASR".  Part of this proposal is to unbind these two different things.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe I should be a bit more clear. Just like a square is a quadrilateral but a quadrilateral is not necessarily a square, NPASR is no consensus but no consensus is not necessarily NPASR. No consensus closes are NPASR only when there is no quorum, not by default. ansh666 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ansh666: As to your last sentence, this sounds correct, and certainly it helps to agree on the current meaning to move forward. 

  But you are also saying "NPASR is no consensus".  This part is incorrect and this erroneous coupling is one of the reasons for this proposal.  WP:NPASR has meaning independent of No quorum#No consensus.  NPASR is an acronym that means, "No prejudice against speedy renomination.  Specifically, WP:NPASR is commonly applicable to Procedural closes and various parts of WP:Speedy keep.  The definition of the acronym needs to be split out.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• I understand what you're getting at now, but I don't see what the fact that NPASR also applies to other forms of closes in a common-sense fashion has to do with the original proposal, which is making NPASR no longer apply to no quorum closes. ansh666 18:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the proposal itself, I think you will see that it is elegantly simple.  But maybe we should focus on splitting out NPASR, and get that clarified as being an acronym.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was one of the original proponents of NPASR, and I've always envisioned it as a way to cut down on endless relisting. In practice, most AfDs closed as NPASR are not renominated, so it's not a big deal for me even if the original nominator immediately sends it back. If they care about it that much then frankly they deserve a second hearing, and let's worry about this only if it becomes an issue; it's already much better than endless relisting which can be thought of as automatic, indiscriminate renomination regardless of whether the nominator is even following the discussion anymore. (By the way, there shouldn't be too many NPASRs in the first place because soft deletion should be used whenever viable.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I was looking today at an old reversion of WP:Deletion policy, and I saw in there that the NPASR concept, not necessarily with the same words, predates WP:Deletion process.  You've raised many interesting points, although I sense that there is no longer an expectation of an endless discussion like there may have been then.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Bold edit

I reverted a bold edit, but I got reverted without any discussion. If you want the edit to stay in then we need to discuss this and get consensus for it, see WP:BRD. @Ansh666: (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be a bit bizarre if any editor could close any discussion at any stage, and then claim that a mod is required to undo that close (but this is happening). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence was inserted just a year ago by Esquivalience. After such a time lapse its removal looks less like a case of BRD than one of unexplained content removal. However, there may be grounds for reviewing this stipulation; could you support your case with a couple of examples?: Noyster (talk), 11:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

IIRC it was the result of a RfC; I will check and get back to you later today. ansh666 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: looking back through talk page archives, this stipulation has been in the guideline since at least 2008; the most recent edit was mostly just a rewording. The closest we have to a formal endorsement is this RfC. See also Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I've restored the content. ansh666 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Thank you. I have specified that it is about deletion discussions. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: that is not at all true. The RfC was clarifying specifically for deletion discussions, but it does still apply to all non-admin closures. ansh666 00:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Do you have any evidence for that claim? I don't think you are correct. Please discuss instead of reverting. Talkpages are important. I removed the words "or another appropriate venue" that you added, because deletion review is the appropriate venue for deletion discussions, and you seem to be trying to change it so that it would apply to all discussions anywhere (which is of course outside of the scope of this page). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Somehow forgot what page I was on; the current wording is correct for deletion discussions. The phrasing at WP:NAC in each section is correct for those types of discussions. Sorry about the confusion. ansh666 07:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Non-admistrator closures may only be reopened in the following manners: by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasons in full (but not solely because the closer is not an administrator per this RfC; de facto in regard to non-deletion discussions, at least by what I found offhand) per WP:NAC; by consensus at deletion review in the case of deletion discussions, by consensus at move review in the case of requested moves, or by consensus at the administrator's noticeboard in the case of other discussions per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• I have followed NAC closes for a long time. Any NAC may be undone by any WP:UNINVOLVED admin (UNINVOLVED is generally required for admin actions), if they find fault with the close. Merely being an NAC is not sufficient reason. Their reasons "in full" is an overstatement, they only need to give a good reason. Often it is diplomatic to not provide "every reason in full detail". Also note that nothing is fully prescriptive. A particularly bad closing action may be BOLDly undone in some circumstances, a consensus anywhere (not just at WP:AN, and there are caveats such as in providing sufficient notifications) can justify anything, and WP:IAR. NB. A good NAC is one for which there is no conceivable justification in reverting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed for the most part: "[The uninvolved administrator] only need[s] to give a good reason", "A particularly bad closing action may be [bold]y undone [per WP:IAR]" (though dropping a note at WP:AN would probably lead to an uninvolved administrator reopening the discussion in their individual capacity if it is particularly bad which is the best road to take), and a consensus in other places may be adequate to reopen a discussion in some cases. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)