Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 77

482:. The time interval between those two events is not material as draft becomes eligible for CSD G13 immediately after six months have passed with no human edits. Six months + one second is enough, but since log and edit history timestamps have a granularity of one minute it is advisable to wait for full minute in order to demonstrate enough time has passed. Tagging it for CSD is not a necessary precondition for deletion per G13 (but if it happens, is not considered a human edit starting the six month counter again). Tagging with a template some time before speedy deletion is part of criteria only for T3, all of C2X other than C2E, F7 c) and d) subcases and two unenumerated subcases of F11 (note no C1 and multiple F-criteria that use word "identified" are included in this list as my reading of policy is that tagging is not strictly necessary with those even if commonly used). Any editor can preclude CSD G13 for expired draft simply by editing it. Any editor can reset the six month counter for any draft, expired or not, simply by editing it. This means that a slowish author can improve her draft one edit per six month indefinitely. 7784:. Content is "the information made available by a website or other electronic medium" (according to Oxford), and I think that is closer to the definition that was intended here. The purpose of A7 is to deal with subjects for which the "barrier to entry" is so low that we deal with an overwhelming amount of non-notable articles. Certainly, because of technology, barriers to entry for many things are getting lower, but I don't think we ever had a proper discussion about whether web applications meet the frequency requirement for CSD (and I'd be surprised if they do), and then whether there is a reason to distinguish them from applications delivered other ways. Regardless of the outcome, we ought to be clear in defining the meaning of this. This can't be too hard, can it? Maybe the narrower definition would be "(1) any information or media only practically available on a website, and (2) websites themselves." The broader definition might be "anything on the Internet". - 496:

usually accept 1 or 2 with maybe minor changes, fix another 2 or 3 & accept them, and postpone about 4 or 5. That's a pretty low yield, because after all most abandoned drafts are indeed worthless. How many time I will keep postponing them depends on what I think are the possibilities. I do not automatically keep renewing. They show up 6 months later on my user talk from Hasteurbot, and then I decide to fix & accept 1/3, let 1/3 get deleted, and postpone again 1/3 for another 6 months. This is not particularly efficient, but I try to do some every day, justas I try to look at some new submitted drafts, some old submitted drafts, and some new unreviewed pages every day. I also now try check some newly entered drafts that have not yet been submitted to find BLP violations & utter junk, and also to find any that can be immediately accepted. (As obvious, I like screening articles, & I get equal satisfaction in removing junk and finding gems.)

5358:. You did ZERO research and negligently mass-created countless articles with false information. The issue is not permastubs, it's that the content is downright wrong – that we also have policies for verifiability and notability that were flaunted. I know you are getting loads of talk notifications about your terrible, incorrect, non-notable articles (with more to come), yet you deliberately ignore them and pretend they're fine and dandy because they're in the GNIS, despite users clearly warning you now and back in 2009 that it was not a reliable basis for article creation without further verification. Merely because this encyclopedia has features of what GNIS is does not mean that what it says is infallible and mandates individual articles for each entry. If you can't recognize that hundreds of pages you made are flat-out wrong and are wasting many people's time to clean up, then shut up and go away. 957:

The bot then goes away for at least 30 days. The bot then comes back and checks if the page hasn't been edited since the time it was notified on, and that the page is now at least 6 months unedited. The bot then does the procedural CSD:G13 nonination and drops yet annother note on the page creator's talk page that their page has been nominated for G13 (just like Twinkle would if someone nominated G13 by hand). I personally railed against the loosening of the rules over bot edits applicablity to G13, but I accept it and choose to uphold a much more stringent standard. All the tools are out there (absent a ridiculous policy grab not initially authorized by community consensus and rejected by affirmative consensus), it falls back to

8526:

Additionally, unless there are problems like copyright violations there really isn't a strong need or benefit to deleting crud in draftspace - leaving it for six months when it will be cleaned up anyway is a much better use of everybody's time. MfD exists for the few exceptions that genuinely do cause problems. It's also worth stressing again that speedy deletion is only for things that will always be deleted - unless there are a large number of examples presented at the relevant XfD that are all always unanimously deleted then we cannot be sure of that. Namespace matters in many contexts, so you cannot just say that because it would be speedily deleted in the main namespace that it would always be deleted in draftspace.

5834:(either deletion or improvement); 2) draftifications are unaccountable – they don't show up in any alert systems (the way prods or Afds do). We can't do much about #1, but #2 should have a solution. And as for the question at hand – should draftified articles be eligible for G13 deletion, I think that's practically moot. Any rules about what can and can't get deleted via G13 depend on the tagging editor or the deleting admin's due diligence. I don't know how much we can depend on that – my experience (which is admittedly limited) is that most of the the G13 CSD category will get emptied in an instant, no matter how many drafts it's got: I don't think most deletions are accompanied by any sort of checks. – 2849:. Partly for the reasons Eureka Lott gives below, but also because it's missing three key requirements: (a) the correctly spelled disambiguation redirect must exist, (b) there must be zero incoming links to the incorrect redirect, and (c) it must have no significant history (if there is significant history it needs discussion to determine whether there are attribution concerns or any other reason for it to exist). Given the already very narrow applicability, the need for even tighter restrictions and the fact that some of these redirects do fall under G6 and/or R3 already I can't see how any criteria along these lines would meet the frequency and non-redundancy parts of 723:

started and essentially abandoned. From what I've come across, there have been a large number of ones that otherr editors rescue also--not just editors with the same desire as I to rescue material in general, but people who have resurrected one or two particular drafts. In draft they're accessible. In user space they are of course still theoretically accessible, and even there nobody owns anything on Knowledge , but retrieving and working on material from someone else's userspace is something very few people would feel comfortable with . I've encountered objections even when I work with draft someone has decided to not submit but abandon.

4503:

these places as unincorporated communities. The problem is, many if not most of these locations are not communities and never were. A long time back when large parts of the US were very thinly populated, it was apparently common practice to list individual ranches and homesteads on official maps, and later on these placenames got added into GNIS, and now their permastubs are cluttering up Knowledge, with no hope of ever being expanded. The same thing happened with individual railroad sidings that were never anything more than a wide spot in the railroad. These worst of these permastubs, which I set out criteria for below, universally fail

5373:

community. There are individual roadhouses that remain as artefacts from the days when every commercial establishment along major travel routes was marked in maps. Many are not even populated places, because GNIS lists every name that's ever appeared in any recognized map. There's also places where GNIS is flat out wrong - where it's clear that the place was never populated to begin with. In even just the few counties I've analyzed, I've found railroad sidings, junctions, non-notable run-of-the-mill hills, and various other features that have one-line permastub articles because GNIS wrongly classified them as "populated places".

5305:, we identify as the first of the 5 pillars of Knowledge "Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." GNIS is a gazetteer, and by lamenting "permastubs" and substituting original research for reliable sources, one of our pillars is in danger of crumbling. Likely many articles will be stubs for the foreseeable future; whether that's geographic locations, biography, species, or whatever - that doesn't permit one's viewpoint to reduce the pillar to formula based on one's original research of what is and isn't what a reliable source says it is. 978:, I did not intend to throw shade at you. I liked the concept of tagging drafts as promising, as not meeting the original motivation for implementation, and I think it is regrettable that this dream did not work out. I don't blame you. You made some strong and valid-sounding criticisms,, I'm sorry if I paraphrased one of them poorly. I still think the concept is desirable, but I do not have an idea that I think is likely to make it work. I don't know where you get the idea that I was speaking to issues of editor ego? I don't even think of it as a place of ego, but as a place of desolation. 7802:

about that. If I am correct, this proposal would not change behavior, merely codify current practice. In any case, the same reasons for excluding a software in general from A7 apply. The likelihood of a new article about a software product that is actually notable failing to clearly explain its significance is higher, and the ability for a single editor to to correctly decide whether a topic should be deleted is less reliable in general, just as ism the case for, say, books. If other admins hav been deletiong articles about web applicatiosn under A7, they should stop doing so.

5432:

Dorado County, for example, I pored over several local histories, various newspaper archives, too many government reports to count, gazetteers of placenames, mining claim records, and even bits and pieces of old census data. I found over 100 where it was blatantly clear that =the "community" never existed as a community. Either they failed to appear in these dozens of documents, or there was coverage making it clear that the locale failed GEOLAND by a mile - railroad sidings, drainage ditches, run-of-the-mill individual roadside stops and hotels, for example.

2901:

up at exactly the same place they would otherwise have done. So as there is no situation in which someone will arrive at the wrong target the redirects are causing no harm. A small amount of extra busywork for Knowledge editors is also not evidence of harm. Just because you currently cycle through a maintenance page every few weeks (during which time a redirect could be speedily deleted under this criterion) and after which new links can be added is completely irrelevant to the need for links to these redirect pages to be replaced before they are deleted.

8430:) is clearly an attempt at an encyclopaedia article, and while the subject is almost certainly not notable that is not something that is for speedy deletion to judge (other than the narrow exceptions in A7/A9), and I've seen drafts of a very similar quality about things that turned out to be notable. One of the purposes of draftspace is to be a holding space for poorly written content about notable subjects, so they can be worked on and cleaned up without biting anybody. This means we absolutely need to be much more lenient than in the article namespace. 3984:

grounds of a bad G6 and that they should have gone to RfD, they’d likely be endorsed on the merits of falling within G6, and not on the grounds of IAR. The community has rejected the idea that it is too broad, and to my knowledge has never enforced a strict reading of it. If the community is unwilling to make the criteria tighter by changing it, and unwilling to overturn administrators who read it liberally, then that typically means the consensus reading of the policy is the more liberal one. Anyway, a happy Easter to you. Always dislike disagreeing :)

8760:

username, and B) about a person that is clearly non-notable. I see PLENTY of these pages every day that aren't spammy enough to warrant G11 but have no chance in hell of becoming articles, and I think that a criterion for these autobiographies would be able to rake out a lot of this junk (stopping the page creators from getting six months of free social media exposure) whilst not affecting any work-in-progress pages on topics that may possibly be notable enough for an article, as hypothetical expansions of A7 and arguably A11 to draft-space would.

8294:

for problems that are potentially fixable as the entire point of draftspace is that it is a place where content can be worked on and improved without having to be ready for mainspace immediately. An advertorial about a notable topic can be rewritten, etc. Before I could support this proposal you need to explain why having some poor content in an unindexed space for a limited time is so significantly bad that we need to make it harder for people to write new content without having to immediately jump through hoops.

5902:(which are all from the last ~24 hours and are only a small sample)). Whatever else, we have to accept that a small but active part of the NPP corps no longer believes in Knowledge's core strength of having imperfect articles about notable topics sitting in plain view for people to improve them and instead thinks it best to hide any new article without tons of sources from public view, essentially dooming them to a G13 fate since most creators will not stick around to defend them.As for what 7621:

software that is ran on a client device. A web application is more appropriately considered web content (i.e. something contained on a website). Given the relative ease of creating a web application it is closer to the latter that the former. I don't see any benefit from specifically distinguishing web applications and web content in the policy, but I do see it creating a loophole where bad articles slip through the cracks and it making it easier for people to use Knowledge for promotion. -

31: 7711:(but perhaps we should expand A7 to include all software instead) This would make A7 simpler, especially for non-computer-savvy users who may not see web-based content (e.g. a website) and web-delivered content (e.g. software only or primarily available via download) as separate things. I've already seen many articles on the latter deleted under A7 as web content. A computer-savvy user like myself would be able to tell the difference between a web application (e.g. a 7601:. When we consider the reasons why web content is included but software excluded from the criterion (the amount of work required to determine what counts as a credible claim of signficiance being suitable or unsuitable for a single non-specialist admin to reliably determine, frequency of occurrence, etc) then it seems clear to me that web applications are fundamentally software that happen to be on the web than they are web content that happens to be software. 6032:(which is a policy unlike DRAFTIFY) explicitly advises all editors to fix problems and not remove content that belongs in an encyclopedia. Hence, some editors will use draftify as a backdoor to deletion since it's basically not monitored. Most, if not all, of those random examples I mentioned could have been handled without draftifying and with preserving content, such as merging or redirecting or simply fixing the lack of sources by adding them. For example, 4444:

find a source, i would not only decliner but drop a moderately pointed note to the tagger. I rarely review F9s but I don't see why the standard would be any different, and I would expect any admin to act similarly. I wouldn't oppose a footnote that the reviewing admin is expected to confirm that the violation is real, and perhaps also to mention cases where another site copies from Knowledge, which I have been caught by a few times, as have others.

2618:, firstly, only applies to recently-created redirects, and age doesn't matter for these errors. Secondly, not every admin handling an R3 knows why these are harmful rather than harmless typos (why should they? it's an arcane technical area), and it wastes everyone's time if an editor applying an R3 tag has to explain why the problem is in fact a problem and the handling admin has to satisfy themself that the reporting editor is correct. 5394:. It took me less than ten minutes to definitely establish that none of these ever were communities, or anything more than individual ranches. There are thousands upon thousands of articles like this that are factually incorrect and that are taking up a tremendous amount of time. I'd much rather be spending that time on my article work, but I have a hard time just ignoring these vast amounts of incorrect information on our encyclopedia. 2440:" statement for others who would rather remove the tag without discussion. Even as an alternative to File PROD, which can be removed without requiring anything, I no longer saw myself wanting to use the "dfu" tag for those reasons I (implicitly?) made, especially since PROD extended to files back in 2017. One recent example is using the "dfu" tag on NSYNC cover arts, which were initially deleted per some "dfu" process, not the FFD, 8594:. I don't think it's a good idea because it is very likely to be interpreted as just "bad draft", or "irredemable draft". There is a fundamental difference between draft space and userspace here, because anybody who attempts to write a draft is saying that they are trying to write an encyclopedia article. Somebody who tries to write an encyclopedia article and does a very bad job is still trying to write an encyclopedia article. 8114:, I don't know that it's "next to useless", but it certainly is a battle that shows no sign of abating. We catch a lot of socks. It would be naive to believe that we catch anywhere near all of them, or even most of them. It's like fighting a pandemic. You have a lot of tools as your disposal. Most of the tools are not very good, but hopefully in combination, they're enough to let us survive. G5 is one of those tools. -- 1922: 3095:- there's no demonstrated need, incredibly narrow CSDs that're rarely invoked are pretty pointless bureaucracy that make the rules harder to navigate, even if they're not internally linked they still may be externally linked, so deleting them absent any motivation is extremely dickish, deleting formattings that are intuitive but not the ones Knowledge has arbitrarily chosen is extremely hostile to new editors, etc. 6603:

from personal experience). But since G10 covers "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", such a page is eligible for G10 deletion (and should be!) no matter if the allegation is true or not. So G10 pages are often, but not necessarily, bad faith creations. On the other hand, vandalism and creating hoaxes are per definition always bad faith creations. Regards

5546:

target or multiple extant draftspace targets - because if those drafts are accepted then a disambiguation page will be required in the mainspace (note that the plausibility or otherwise of the targets is outside the scope of this criterion, blue links are all that matter). If the draftspace targets are redlinks and the link has not been recently added then I would regard it as eligible for speedy deletion.

4875:. Unless and until the consensus that verifiably extant populated or formerly populated places are notable changes (which is unlikely) then every single one of these needs to be individually examined to determine whether it is or was a settlement and/or is notable for some other reason. With the consensus regarding populated places as it stands then no CSD criterion meeting the requirements is possible. 540:. There should be some requirement that the author gets some kind of warning before it actually gets deleted. I'm an admin, so I'm just going to undelete it and move it into my own userspace. But if I was a new user, I'd be pretty peeved, and discouraged. Sure, we need to clean up the trash, but if it's been sitting for six months, surely a week's warning to the author isn't going to hurt us? -- 5887:"by anyone who cares" is the problem though. Most G13 deletions have no one to care about them. So what Anarchyte describes (and why I have been critical of draftifying without consensus for a long time) is a real risk for articles about notable subjects that just no one cares about. While you might have not used it as a "lazy alternative", others are doing so on a daily basis, especially for the 8374:), that it's not currently overwhelming MfD isn't (in my view) a good reason to send no-brainer pages through it for the sake of process. Even taking a few pages a week out of MfD is that much less for people to have to sift through, so it lets people focus that much more time and effort on those pages that might actually be salvageable at MfD and might actually be salvageable in draftspace. 7575:, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax instead. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. 3749: 7723:), but in my experience it's hard work getting non-computer-savvy users to see the difference. This issue was why the RfC a few years ago led to the redefinition of web content as currently described by the web content notability guideline. Under the old definition of web content, software was only a product if it's widely available in a brick-and-mortar store, which is preposterous. 445:?", and the answer to that is of course "none" as they've already had 6 months to work on it. Even a token edit would have prevented deletion. There is a bot which does a pretty good job of informing editors once 5 months have passed; and if the editor didn't receive a bot message and/or by the time they get the G13 notification the draft has been deleted they can in most cases get a 7667:. I've been thinking about this some more since the earlier discussion on my talk page, and I can genuinely see both sides of the argument here. It may be difficult for a non-specialist administrator to determine clearly whether there is any significant claim for notability of a web application, but on the other hand, I can see plenty of instances where that might be difficult for 2925:

speed that up). It's reasonable to ask deleting admins to check the history first, so a time limit (no older than X years) and a requirement that there be no substantial edit history would be useful. While a lot of people don't understand "errors in the act of disambiguating" I think the proposed wording is sufficiently clear. If we want to clarify more, we could phrase the CSD as

1805:" works for projects that are no longer so. These RfD's are almost always uncontroversial, so we ought to expediate the process by creating a CSD for that. And it need not be limited to creative works; for example, for elections where the next cycle does not have an article, we can delete "Next XYZ election" redirects to previous elections. Thus I propose the following CSD (R5): 1713:

such as navboxes that are a subset of another navbox or speediable under other criteria such as G2. While the suggested change will probably avoid some confusion and avoid overly long processes I think it's worth having a larger discussion about T3 and if it even makes sense as criteria anymore. It would certainly not be accepted today being neither frequent or uncontestable. ‑‑

7873:, see above), is to deter such banned users from circumventing their bans. If an editor is contesting every G5 based on the fact that the article is salvageable, they are essentially continuing the disruption caused by the banned user. Saving a select article here or there is entirely compatible with G5 and BMB imho but large-scale rescue missions are not. Regards 6779:, you're right both are created in bad faith but an example of a vandalism page would be 'fuck all stupid wikipedians' whereas an example of a hoax page would be 'the country Orkvanderland is famous for cultivation'. Basically, a vandalism page would consist of offensive words whereas a hoax page would try to make us believe that something fake is real. 4267:

for the prod is more or less the same or at least similar, and if a good-faith editor other than the creator removed the prod, then i would take t Hat to indicate that the deletion is not uncontroversial, and not proceed with a speedy, but would instead go through XfD. No policy mandates this, but as a reviewing admin I might decline on such a basis.

2547:

point expanding existing criteria and felt the proposed R5 criterion duplicated existing criteria. Others were of the opinion that a need for this criterion was not established, such arguments were either uncontested or met with weak opposition. Numerically, they might be evenly-matched but the garnered consensus is in no way enough to change the

7691:, I don't think that's in dispute - and it could be dealt with through XFD or PRODing - but with this modification to the A7 criteria, it would be able to remain on-wiki for some time until those processes were resolved. In clear-cut cases, I think we ought to be removing these in the same way as any other web content, for the same reasons. 364:

page is untagged after such an edit. Making it a PROD has the advantage that we can encourage the page creator to remove the PROD, while we don't really want to encourage page creators removing speedy tags (it is a complicated business when that is a good idea). So yeah, no more objections from me to a draft prod that replaces G13. —

2829:. R3 should remain time limited in all circumstances, that's one of its most significant points and the reason for it is not always understood so it should not be diluted. G6 is already overloaded and is the most frequently misused criterion (intentionally and otherwise) the absolute last thing it needs is more things added to it. 8937:

I think that if this were implemented it would be used for things a single editor thought were essentially non-notable, or were just BAD DRAFTs. But a single editor can be wrong even an experienced one or an admin. Thyat is why notability decisions proceed by a consensus discussion. Besides, drqafts are NOINDEXed, and no

6646:, with the former assuming bad faith and being used for pages that consist chiefly of blatant insults, and the latter assuming good faith and being used for pages that contain reasonable prose, but whose negative allegations aren't sourced - the example you gave, Joe Schmoe is a thief, would most properly be tagged under 8080:) to write these articles for them. A good chunk of our socks are UPE. UPEs don't actually care if they get blocked, because accounts are free and they're treated as throw-away resources. All that matters is that the article stays, because that's what they get paid for. G5 is one of our tools to fight that. -- 5266:, the creator of most of these permastubs (at least the California ones, I haven't looked at other states) has repeatedly been asked by various editors to assist in cleaning this up, and has repeatedly refused, as it appears he doesn't agree with the growing consensus that these locales are not notable. I agree with 633:

which only applies once the draft hasn't been edited for some length of time, preferably one which requires the tagger to read the draft and come to some sort of opinion on how valuable it is. Failing that requiring a week's notice, or a week's tagging (as with a few of the F criteria) would be better than nothing.

5140:, then I add a notability template and describe what's missing in the Talk page. There are some place articles that don't have a county template, I usually catch these via a search. I'm all for cleaning these up, but I also want to be sure that someone takes the time to review each proposed deletion. The 1887:"Upcoming" and "untitled" redirects are usually the result of page moves and so the redirects have value for a time after the target is no longer upcoming. How long that is varies depending on multiple factors that are subjective. There are sometimes also attribution requirements that need to be considered. 8644:

I try to closely follow both MfD and AfC. This new draftspace criterion, basically A11/U5 extended to draftspace is needed. While draftspace being a hidden space that does not damage the look of Knowledge means that there is no reader-based harm aspect, having to pass these pages is damaging to the

8350:

OK you have explained there is a problem. You have not demonstrated that this is a problem that occurs frequently enough for a CSD criterion - there is no immediately obvious evidence these are overloading MFD for example and there is nothing in your comment that indicates why they need to be deleted

8220:

The previous discussion was mainly against expanding A11 because the proposers failed to show any actual need to do so (per #3: Frequent). Not sure the two examples above from August 2019 and April 2020 really qualify as "frequent", especially considering the risk of misuse. As for U5, I am generally

7278:

The problem is the template is currently doing multiple jobs when each job needs its own specific template. Picking just one of the jobs and making this the template for that creates a strong likelihood that regular users will continue to use it for both jobs meaning that either pages will be deleted

7200:

is indeed probably the quickest way! An issue can be opened on GitHub, but for "straightforward" a ping'll do (albeit, I was/am away for a bit). This should be fine as long as the template persists under some name. FWIW, it doesn't look like PageTriage uses it (or any G6) for its CSD activities. ~

5619:

The complexity is a good point as any rule would need to cover cases where a draft is linked directly and a redlinked mainspace title that the draft will occupy if accepted (which is not always the same as the draft title). I certainly wont object if the consensus is to simply exclude draftspace from

5372:

equal to "community". The database contains countless individual homesteads and ranches that were never anything more than the abode of one person or family. It contains cookie-cutter subdivisions with no significant coverage and that are part of an actual community, but not themselves a recognizable

5192:

I see your points about the inactivity of state projects, I'm probably the only one active in the Nevada project :-). Perhaps this would reinvigorate the state projects? I find the cleanup website tool to be invaluable. The regular state page about new pages is also helpful for avoiding new kruft.

5070:

I actually really like stealing the framework of an SvG approach for this. We don't need to assume bad faith, impose a deadline, or move things into draft space, we just need a structure by which we can review all of these instead of doing it piecemeal. My issue with bulk noms of these places is that

5055:

The SvG approach seems rather overblown here since there is no reason to assume bad faith regarding the creations and its extremely unlikely that there will be any BLP issues. Additionally if any of these have names similar to much larger places, identifying sources that relate to the small place can

4894:

whichever version is most palatable to the community. My only concern would be if someone could game the system by adding sources that are based on GNIS data such as or . I'm not worried about accidentally deleting notable places; we shouldn't be spending hours researching coverage for articles that

4474:

Rare, in my experience, but not unheard of. More common is where a source is provided, and there is significant text identical in source and WP article, but on closer examination the "source" copied fropm Knowledge, directly or indirectly. I have also seen a few cases where there was copying, but the

4127:

allows the page creator to contest the request by removing the tag. So that is the correct answer imho: If a third editor contested the PROD (not just removed it for procedural reasons), then deletion should be considered controversial for most tags (especially G11 or A7) and speedy deletion requests

3529:

Yes. In the absence of parenthetical disambiguation, we tend to be a bit more lenient as we're dealing with terms that people are actually likely to search for by typing them in their entirety. Parenthetically disambiguated terms are relatively unlikely to be guessed, so the main source of traffic is

3028:

OK, that seems like a contradiction. Yes, they should be deleted, that's obvious and uncontroversial. So why do we need to discuss them? Or, no, it's not obvious and uncontroversial, so they shouldn't be deleted without discussion. Of the two, having participated in the discussions, the conclusion is

2546:

for this proposal. In my opinion, the opposition is in general, more well-reasoned and did their due diligence of explaining their stance, the proposition seems to be significantly on the backfoot consensus-wise. Particularly, some members of the opposition (some supporters as well) felt there was no

1890:

Redirects with "next" often have other targets, e.g. a list of elections, the body the election is to, etc. these all need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. On at least couple of occasions there has actually been an article but which wasn't obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject (iirc

1048:

Some thoughts. Welcome back perennial opposers to G13, your FUD is noted and still not compelling. Saying we should replace G13 without defining what the draftprod will be is a 100% nonstarter. I do endorse a repeatable "proposed deletion" for draft space (state your reasoning for deletion) that also

928:

specifically so that editors who saw hope could add (or edit the count parameter) so that "promising" drafts could be found without disrupting the purpose of any "article" page. 2. The later attempt to declare that Promising draft is perma-sticky (can't be removed by any other editor) and permanantly

831:

I don't thing REFUND is adequate. It works only for the original contributor, and only when they are willing to understand and follow our bureaucratic procedures. Articles need to be exposed to the community to get them improved. . Draft doesn't expose them to the general world, but it does to those

767:

If it was a draft prod after six months of non editing it would enable uninvolved editors to use a draft prod category to assess any drafts with potential or that can be published straight away. At present only the creator is informed and the G13s are deleted so quickly most of them cannot be checked

578:

I'm not saying you did anything contrary to our currently accepted process. But, still, my initial reaction was, "WTF???" It didn't take me long to figure out what happened, but I'm trying to look at this from the viewpoint of a new user. I have years of experience and a mop to help me understand.

501:

That said, I have probably kept some too long. I would certainly like some method for finding the most-renewed ones. I would like even more some way of classifying them so people in the field can find them. If we try to find a better system, that step--calling them to appropriate attenetion--is the

257:

after a week with no further edits. That would be a bit kinder than immediately deleting after tagging and notification. Assuming that the draft creator edits only occasionally, a seven day delay gives them some chance of catching the deletion notice. Sure, they can always ask for refund later, but a

8936:

the proposal. Franky U5 is being overused in userspace for things which re at elast arguably plsusdible drafts that would be declined, but not rejected, if submitted to AfC. The point of draft space is, as Thryduulf points out, to allow a degree (not total) of flexibility while a draft is developed.

8495:

I see no reason not to assume good faith regarding their intentions. If you have to assume bad faith in order to speedy delete something, then there is a good chance that it should not be speedily deleted - take a step back and check you really do have a reason to assume bad faith before proceeding.

8464:

And I would decline a U5 nomination for that if it was in userspace. It's not blatantly misusing Knowledge as a webhost, it is either misunderstanding the purpose of Knowledge or misunderstanding the nature of a Knowledge article, but the intention seems to be a good faith attempt at writing content

8140:

I've looked over past discussions on extending non-general criteria to drafts; while most of them would be overly complicated to incorporate, A11 and U5 seem like a perfect fit. Unlike A7, where there's at least sometimes a chance there's a draft on a notable subject that just needs more work, there

8092:

Roy, isn't all that next to useless, because for every new job they use a new throwaway account, on a public access computer, so a discovered connection is plausibly deniable, and the jobs while thematic are unrelated to each other? We should make new page creation require an account validated by a

8039:

essentially: If you are banned, you are not allowed to edit. If we keep "good" articles, it encourages those banned editors to circumvent their bans instead of abiding by them and appealing them at one point, thus increasing the general workload (by having to keep hunting their socks) and creating a

7852:

to reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor, so long as they take complete responsibility for the content. In that case, does this provision allow any editor to override G5 speedy deletes by taking responsibility for the article? An article creation is a large edit, after all. If so, maybe

7339:

Well disambiguating would be essentially the same thing as deprecating here - the template would no longer have the original functionality but would present the user with a message explaining why and what they need to use instead (which is one of two things, depending on their intention) rather than

7281:

Deprecation in this case does not mean not having a template for any of the jobs, just deprecating this specific template. There are (at least) two ways to achieve this - (1) moving the template to a new title for one job, replacing the redirect with a deprecation message and creating a new template

6210:

instances of established articles being moved to draftspace would be for the Article Alert Bot to report the move of any page with a WikiProject tag out of mainspace. It would possibly report some false positives as some people put pages in draftspace briefly while performing a round-robin move, but

5788:

I understand your concern and this is definitely not something widespread enough to warrant a lengthy discussion, but perhaps the terms of draftifying something should mention that if the article probably won't ever return to mainspace, it should be sent to AfD. That way we get rid of it quickly and

5740:

seems to not differentiate between pages started in Article namespace and then moved to Draft namespace vs other starting namespaces. I agree it's underhanded, however if someone started moving pages from mainspace to draft space, waited the necessary unedited period (without anybody else objecting

5545:

Assuming they have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" then yes they are technically eligible. However, it's worth not being too hasty with pages in draftspace, as they may be a work in progress. Also I would refrain from deletion if they have either one articlespace target and one extant draftspace

5367:

You don't seem to understand the role GNIS plays. It's purpose isn't recognition, it's standardization. An entry in GNIS doesn't say anything about the notability of a place. All it says is that all government agencies should refer to it by that name, not by other names. "Populated place"/"Populated

5131:

It might be better to use the state-based projects to manage this so that we get somewhat local expertise on sources. My approach with Nevada is that I'm going through each county and reviewing each article. Typically, I add an infobox, confirm the GNIS information, add a proper GNIS citation, add

4266:

and the user whose IP ends in 252.96. A previous prod does not prevent a clearly valid speedy deletion tag, particularly for copyvio or attack page or BLP violation. However, where the matter is more of a judgement call, such as A7 (significance) or G11 (promotion), particularly if the reason given

3583:

per my comments below, but in short: the deletion drive for older redirects from misspelings of "disambiguation" appears largely complete, so the proposed new criterion is going to apply only to newly created ones and so be redundant to R3. Really, we don't need CSD criteria with such a ridiculously

3319:

These redirects don't serve a good purpose. They produce INTDAB errors if linked, they're not going to be consistently searched terms. Redirects are cheap, but editor time at RFD isn't. I disagree that having a speedy criterion that might not be commonly used a bad thing, we still have the patent

3217:

which lists it as an alternative spelling since the 17th century). In addition in many cases one may not be aware that an alternative spelling is used in a different dialiect of English to ones own. Better that each case is discussed so that mistakes are not made, particularly as there is a systemic

3141:

would probably be an example of RDAB even though its existed for years. Yes these might be harmless but indeed the mess creating all of these would be large and the search ignores caps if a different capitalization exists, namely if "Skye (Disambiguation)" is deleted and you put that into the search

1894:

Incorrect years again need individual consideration - sometimes they are the result of a common misconception and should be kept, sometimes they are actually confusing multiple films, sometimes the release date changes after its had significant publicity, etc. Whether the incorrect year is useful is

1712:

for a while to see how it's used in practice and saw just how little it's used. There are also a large proportion that are declined, either because of it being used or because the template wasn't understood properly. Most of the rest are either controversial enough that they would benefit from a TfD

1003:

Looks like I need to follow the "Don't edit wikipedia while (drunk/tired/frustrated/hungry/etc)" addage. I just get a little tired havind to fight this same argument (water down G13 to effecively worthless) every 8 months or so because of what I perceive as a secret agenda to get rid of CSD:G13 for

164:

Not sure what the question is here. If it's stale for six months, it's eligible for G13. If the author wants to continue to work on it, they can request a refund. I think what you might want is some kind of pre-six-month warning but that's not strictly required by the policy (I think there was a bot

8640:

It may be best to create a freshly worded criterion D1 that merges the common ground between A11 and U5. I think the non-contributor aspect of U5 should be retained. I think the " plainly indicates that the subject was invented(etc)" should be retained, with the A11 caveats, without requiring the

8293:

As SoWhy says, you first need to demonstrate that there is a problem that needs fixing, and that your proposal would fix that problem without causing other problems. Nothing in this proposal appears to attempt to do any of that. I'm also more philosophically opposed to expanding CSD into draftspace

8156:

The problem with just letting these sit is that 1. even if they'd be deleted after 6 months they're still languishing for at least that long, thereby giving these things attention they shouldn't be getting, and 2. they can be indefinitely resubmitted to prolong their existence. Right now what I see

7759:

a year or two later but ultimately seems to have stuck. The current criterion is indeed making a weird distinction as far as the 2020 internet goes - if anything, insignificant mobile apps are at least as much of a problem as browser apps, these days. I'm fairly torn on what the solution is here: I

7376:

Even assuming you mean TfD rather than CfD, then why should they have to figure out (a) what went wrong, (b) why, and (c) what they have to do to fix it, when instead we can just tell them what they need to know in the very place they are looking right now? In my experience many people remember the

7231:

I don't concur with deprecating the template. I think it just needs to be clear that it's use is for cut-and-paste moves, not copyright violations. Would there be any concerns about moving the template to db-cutpastemove (or something of the like) and changing "copy" to "cut" with appropriate links

6818:

However, some undisclosed paid editors might not be aware of the ToU, at least on their first creation, and thus not everyone creating a paid article without disclosure will necessarily act in bad faith. IIRC, the lack of consensus to speedy delete such articles was based (in part) on the fact that

6502:

to make an actual list of the pages (for example in a sandbox), list at MFD, and notify some wikiprojects. If you don't want to actually check the pages, you could make a bot request to generate the list for you (making lists is not controversial). Once it clears MFD, bulk deletion will be simple

6267:

banner; have no other useful page history; and are for files that were moved to Commons in late 2011 or early 2012. WikiProject United States has no need for these pages to be tagged, and so the banners will be removed. However, this would leave the talk pages blank, and they would serve no purpose

5851:

deletion can easily be undone by anyone who cares. I personally haven't used draftify as a "lazy alternative" to notability, but I'm not sure I've moved anything to draft space that I didn't catch at NPP that also needed to not be in mainspace for some reason. If an article is sourced and has spent

5634:

Yeah, I'm honestly struggling to see any real utility in ever applying G14 to draftspace. The tidiness benefits of removing unnecessary navigation hurdles in mainspace are fine, but it's not like a pointless disambiguation page in draftspace actually inconveniences anyone. I can imagine examples of

5241:

in 2009, this person continued to make 2,000 one-liners, scores of which have already been deleted, redirected, or identified as incorrect even as the processing of them is just getting started. This was not done in good faith, as shown by the blatant disregard for concerns made then and subsequent

5163:

I didn't think many state projects were very active, to be honest. My goal here really is to have a centralised discussion so we can be clear a couple users have looked at each article comprehensively in order to make the cleanup easier. Individual AfDs at large scale are exhausting. I want to make

5132:

a citation for a post office if there was one, add a citation for information about the origin of the place name (if any), add citations for any mining history. Then I spend some time looking at Google Books, newspapers.com and other sources for that location. If a location is missing significant

4981:

thinking about this I don't think it's a good case for speedy deletion. This criterion can (and probably will) be applied to any badly-developed articles on US places, even ones which aren't mass-created stubs of the type this is meant to get rid of. It will also result in some perfectly acceptable

4173:

FWIW, going by the NPP flowchart, most CSD criteria should have been considered before a PROD/BLPPROD is put in place - copyvio, promo, A7 significance etc. However, given that the grounds for declining are very different, I don't think that a decline for a PROD/BLPPROD should strictly invalidate a

3983:

disagreed with that interpretation and there was a fair amount of agreement with my interpretation that it is in fact a category for any uncontroversial maintenance or housekeeping deletion and that is why it is worded the way it is. If I were to G6 these and someone were to take them to DRV on the

3300:

I don't think this is sufficiently common to justify the overhead of a speedy deletion criterion, especially since any newly created redirects of this type would qualify for R3 anyway. The RfDs cited look like a the results of some editors recently trying to cull these redirects, once that cull has

2924:

The problems Eureka and Thryduulf bring up should be considered in the final wording, but I think in general a CSD for misspelling the word "disambiguation" is a net positive. I don't think we need to check incoming links (if something links there, we should probably fix it, and a redlink will help

2900:

They link to the intended disambiguation page in a manner that makes it clear the ambiguous link is intentional, i.e. exactly the same as what would happen if the "(disambiguation)" link was used, and anyone entering the page directly in any of the other ways people navigate Knowledge will also end

363:

The placement of the CSD tag would also potentially alert people who have watchlisted the draft. But I see some advantages to a draft prod process now. The main difficulty I see with both draft prod and times G13 is that any edit to the page should reset the timer, and we need to make sure that the

8632:

Extending U5 to draftspace I think requires more attention to the precise wording. My concern comes from seeing some people at MfD reference U5 for a draft where U5 would not apply even if the page were in userspace. This may be an issue of the editor not reading WP:CSD. However, the principle,

7868:

Any speedy criterion is a "may", not a "must" and any editor can contest a speedy nomination in good faith, making it then ineligible for speedy deletion in most cases. So generally, that should be possible. However, editors should remember the "they have independent reasons for making such edits"

7801:

I have never regarded article about web applications to be "web content" subject to A7, and I have declined several speedy deletions on that ground in the past. I think that most admins who patrol speedy deletion tags have taken the same view, but I haven't done any surveys, so I could be mistaken

7566:

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and

6602:

An article with "Joe Schmoe is a thief" (assuming Joe Schmoe is a non-notable individual and there are no reliable sources about him being that) is an attack page even if Joe Schmoe is indeed a thief and from the creator's POV, they are just informing the public about something they know (possibly

5562:

The drafting of a disambiguation page in draftspace would imply to me that the same author is drafting a new topic that will be added, and when mainspaced, will justify a new DAB page, invalidating G14. Would anything else make sense? I would expect the draft DAB page to link the article, and to

5431:

I consider myself a pretty strong inclusionist. If there's any independent significant coverage of a subject from reliable sources and there's enough information out there to write more than a sentence or two, I almost always support keeping/expanding said article. In analyzing the articles for El

4443:

If I were reviewing a G12 speedy tag, and no source had been provided, i would decline unless a web search revealed an obvious source (for example, in a pagfe about a school, if content had been copied from the school web site). I might use the standard copyvio web search tool. If I didn't quickly

3665:

d to this, largely for all the reasons given above, in particular Cryptic, Hut, and in particular WilyD, who hits the nail on the head: there's no significant need, and the expanded bureaucracy of isn't worth it. Any new cases can be covered by R3, any remaining old ones surely aren't a burden on

2008:

if you think a page that has had a speedy deletion declined but you still think it needs to be deleted, then you have three options. 1: let it go. 2: discuss the matter on the talk page of the person who declined the speedy deletion. 3: nominate the page at XfD (which can be done after option 2 if

956:

edit in the past 5 months. If there is none, it drops a friendly notice on the editor's page that "your work has not been edited in 5 months, and could be nominated for deletion if not edited". It provides information for Userfication (if the creator is a user) and how they can request a Refund.

8807:

Also, another point I forgot to add was that I don't think expanding U5 into draft-space would be effective enough. Autobiographical profiles that are relatively short and not spammy are perfectly acceptable userpages, so wouldn't be eligible for U5, but in draft-space, they are hopeless articles

8525:

See also my reply immediately above, but draftspace and mainspace serve different purposes and one of the explicit purposes of draftspace is that it is somewhere that articles can be developed and improved over time without needing to meet all the standards, policies, guidelines, etc immediately.

8249:

I know there's been no consensus in the past; that's why I'm making a proposal now, since I think it's worth revisiting. And as to frequency, we have criteria like A5 even though such deletions are rare; streamlining obvious calls is a good thing, even if they're relatively infrequent. Also, as I

8225:

does not strike me as a good example to argue the case. In fact, the MFD was not centered around people believing this was a misuse as a webhost but instead potentially spamming and the username of its creator does not indicate that they are the subject of the draft. Moreover, if this had been an

8206:

First off all, I'll say plainly that i'm not necessarily against these proposals at all. (Has anything plain ever been said less plainly!) Although I'm pretty adamantly against widening CSD criteria any further into articlespace, applying WP:NOT a little more firmly in user and project pages will

7686:

be A7able were it that it had no clear claim of notability whatsoever, for the same reasoning we use for other web content. I could easily this afternoon go and throw some JavaScript together and produce some god-awful word processor on the web, then create a WP article on it. It clearly wouldn't

7620:

This would make A7 far too lax to the detriment of trying to keep garbage out of the encyclopedia. A web application is software, but so is any web content, or anything really in digital form that is processed by a computer. I understand the meaning of software in the context of A7 to be packaged

6857:

Personally I think the combination of these two criteria is a feature, not a problem. Drawing the line about when a hoax obvious enough to be speedyable is a challenge, and we definitely want anything ambiguous to be reviewed via an AfD or similar. Making the criterion based on "a hoax so blatant

6471:

I don't see the point of tagging 10,000 pages, but I'd certainly publicize this widely to make sure everybody is on board. Actions that affect 10,000 pages need special care and planning. And, surely if they were created 8 or 9 years ago, another few weeks isn't going to make any difference. I

5603:

Only just seen this. I don't think G14 should apply to draft space disambiguation pages because any draft is by definition a work in progress and it's fine for a draft to not have all the elements that would be required if it was in mainspace. Adding lots of complex rules regarding eligibility of

5508:

As it's looking increasingly clear that CSD is inappropriate here (I expected this would most likely be the outcome, but figured it was worth a shot), but at the same time it's clear some process needs to take place to handle these inaccurate articles, it may be worth further discussion somewhere

4925:

It's not our fault other services copy information from Knowledge without reflecting on it. And there is nothing that bars users from having a discussion on deleting more than one such article if they are all found non-notable. But speedy deletion needs to be objective and not requiring extensive

4502:

is a database of US places that contains essentially every US placename that has ever been shown on a map. About a decade ago, a number of users mass-created thousands upon thousands of one-sentence stub articles for the locations listed in GNIS as "populated places", with the articles describing

4104:

There may be specific exceptions, but in general PROD is the lowest of hurdles, CSD is higher, so I don't think so. An article can be de-PRODed for any reason, or no reason at all. A speedy request should generally only be turned down if the article doesn't meet the criteria, or can be fixed.

3913:

If the need for a new CSD criterion has been felt because of the recent activity around that type of redirects at RfD, then it's worth pointing out that this new activity is down to a few editors currently tracking down all misspelt "disambiguation" redirects out there, some of which are almost a

782:

As Roy has just experienced deletion of good faith drafts feels awful. This is why everyone seems to agree on notification. Right now that notification isn't ocurring. DRAFTPROD would be one way of giving notification without need for a bot. Plus as Atlantic points out, by having a category those

632:

only to find it deleted again within a few hours, even though it wasn't tagged for G13 and had been recently edited. My guess is that some admins have automatically generated lists of G13 candidates and just delete everything on them. I would support getting rid of it and replacing it with a PROD

8861:

And then there's the situation I came here about today, which is one user who has created 11 drafts that are their original story ideas for existing television shows. They don't quite rise to the level of a blatant hoax (although the user does assert that they're actual shows, and that's how the

8365:

They're considered suitable for speedy deletion without consensus in article space and in userspace, just being in a different namespace doesn't make their content at all suitable for Knowledge. If we can trust the judgment of editors and admins to appropriately delete such pages in mainspace or

7453:

I've changed the text, as mentioned above. I think there is consensus to move the template to a more appropriate name, even with the open question about what to do with the origin page (even if the origin page is marked deprecated or made a disambiguation page, etc., the template would be moved,

4694:

be covered. There is some other stuff that appears on some of these articles - climate info (usually pulled from databases that contain estimated climate data for every square mile in the US), post office opening and closing dates, railroad and highway names, river names, and explanations of the

3905:

expedite the deletion of such redirects I'll be all aboard (though probably CSD isn't the way to go as there can be all sorts of complications, starting with the fact that most such redirects are remnants of moves or have histories). What I don't see is why there should be a separate process for

1891:

one was related to Irish presidential elections and another was something at the state level in India). There also needs to be a grace period immediately after a target ceases to be the next - especially for multi-day or multi-round events when the line between "next" and "most recent" is blurry.

495:

to quickly look at every prospective G13 I can that is not athletes or popular culture or popular music (fields where i have no ability to even guess) to find ones that are not hopeless using. Out of a page listing 200 of prospective G13s, about 1/3 are relevant to me, & out of those 66 I

5833:

I've sometimes seen some really odd draftifications of old, established articles – and if these articles are obscure enough, chances are that no-one will notice this has happened. The root problems here are 1) people draftify as a lazy alternative to checking notability and taking proper action

1809:

This applies to redirects with incorrect years, outdated "upcoming" labels; redirects from "untitled" works that have been given titles; and redirects to cycles of recurring events or holders of office positions with outdated "next" labels, where the next instance is unknown or does not have an

722:

If we start getting stringent about material in draft, it will instead en up in userspace. There is one compelling reason why uncompleted articles are better in Draft than in user space: in draft space other people can se them and work on them. I have completed several hundred drafts that were

8759:

I'm not sure whether this is better placed here than in its own proposal, but I was thinking that a new criterion would be useful, criterion D1, which is for pages in draft space that are A) clearly autobiographical, as evidenced by first-person writing or a page title similar to the creator's

8425:

Speedy deletion is very much only for things that need to be done frequently and will always be deleted. A couple of times a week is nowhere near the required level, especially as of the two examples you give only the first would be speedily deleteable in mainspace (A11 obviously invented, and

7671:

website, not just a web app. I think there is a real danger here that we get into the weeds of what is and isn't a web application, and to be honest, even as someone who actually writes the things for a job, I'd find it difficult to come up with a hard and fast determiner of what forms one, as

5428:. That template contains a few dozen notable communities, and several times more that simply are not communities and never were. And now you've got to waste a tremendous amount of time sifting through all that chaff to find the wheat you're looking for. There's a clear and obvious problem here. 3449:

seems to already be covered by G6, which I disagree with Thryduulf on in terms of being overloaded. If anything I would get rid of all existing R criteria and merge them into G6, since I think they all fall under it already even if they didn’t exist on their own. I don’t want to encourage more

5991:

I don't really have a problem with any of those moves. I might have PRODded those if draftify wasn't an alternative. I also support a bot which tracks changes to draft, preferably with a filter for the original creator of the article as I would assume those wouldn't need to be spot checked as

5910:

has also given us an opportunity, at least if he agrees to make his script log all such moves in a central place, which probably should account for most such moves at this point. I had previously advocated creating a bot that logs all moves to draft and I had a SQL query set up that gives the

4374:

If an admin can't verify that a speedy deletion tag is correct then they should decline it. In the case of a copyright violation that means that if no source is noted by the tagger or they can't find a source themselves then they should either decline (if obviously incorrect) or treat it as a

4210:

Sorry, yes - I agree with you that deletion should generally be considered controversial if a third party has removed the PROD, especially for A7 or G11. I just don't want to get into a situation where a DEPROD becomes an automatic, bureaucratic bar to an obviously valid CSD tag being applied

1261:

As SmokeyJoe says, if a page is just "disambiguation-like", it is an edge case and possibly not a good candidate for speedy deletion. Not everything that should be deleted should be covered by the CSD. By the way, the purpose of redirects ending in "disambiguation" is to mark certain links as

1202:

Whether redirects ending in (disambiguation) should or should not point to set-index pages or lists of things with similar titles is controversial and therefore inappropriate for speedy deletion. It may also indicate a need for a disambiguation page, in which cases deletion is not the correct

517:

I'd support a draft prod to replace G13 but only if it was limited to stale drafts that haven't been edited for 6 months as this would give the creators and uninvolved editors time to check them via a draft prod category before deletion as many are deleted so quickly at csd that they can't be

7953:

There aren't any - prod, FFD or F8 are the only options. As far as I can see, all the checks are actually needed so that we don't delete a file here only for the Commons file to be deleted as well. No new speedy deletion criterion will be approved as it would be either redundant to F8 or not

861:

marking reviewed drafts as suitable for leaving indefinitely. It would be a category of drafts recommended for editors to look at and work on. G13 was primarily driven by the need to clear out tens of thousands of unrelieved potential BLP and copyrights violating pages, and by tagging with

8270:

seems more like a reason to retire those criteria instead of adding new ones. But if they are already deleted incorrectly, surely some examples could be named? As I noted, I'm not against it on principle but rather because I think the potential harm will outweigh the potential good. Regards

3950:

a dumping ground for anything you think nobody will object to deletion - this is a very common misunderstanding and why it has by far the highest rate of incorrect use of any of the criteria. If it were proposed as is today it would rightly snow-opposed for being subjective and contestable.

1408:

Ordinarily I would propose modifying the template to match the policy, but in this case it seems reasonable to me that a template should not be speedily deleted if it is in use. With the information I have to hand my recommendation would be to modify the wording of T3 to match the template.

8561:

There is a world of difference between "policy free zone" and "be more lax with the requirements for speedy deletions". Nobody has shown any evidence that there are so many policy-violating drafts that cannot wait six months for deletion that MfD is overloaded, and there have been multiple

6312:

being speedyable, also as noted in G7; and G8 is already overloaded with caveats and caveats to the caveats. Wonkery about which criterion to use aside, I can't imagine this would be controversial, especially if the deletion summaries said something to the effect of "only content was ever

2222:

doesn't belong here. The whole paragraph is about contesting deletion, and right in the middle there's this thrown in about creators requesting deletion. It fits with neither what comes before nor what comes after. The sentence is redundant to what is already given in the relevant section

8719:

in spirit. I agree we need a less restrictive hoop to jump through with respect to disposing of content that is never going to improve enough to move to mainspace ("I know it when I see it"). Right now the best way to demonstrate a good cause would be to sort through all the backwater

6160:

The whole point of this thread is that these articles will be deleted circumventing the deletion policy. Saying ATD does not apply because they are draftified and not deleted ignores that the decision to draftify is both akin to a "6-month PROD" as Guy puts it and ATD should be consider

3475:, with no substantive page history. Parenthetical disambiguation here refers to any term in parentheses, including the word 'disambiguation', as long as the term in parentheses is not part of the name of the topic. Typos may consist of incorrect spelling, formatting, and/or spacing." -- 8326: 8792:

your first step should be to nominate these at MfD. If there is a large number of them that are consistently getting deleted then we can consider whether a speedy deletion criteria is needed. Without any evidence of frequency or uncontestability there will never be a consensus for it.

7354:

Redlinks are often sufficiently helpful. A user encountering a redlink with this template (which, assuming we change all of the documentation, means that rare someone who has memorized the name of this template) will, I think, quite naturally venture to WP:CFD to see what's wrong, no?

8445: 3626:

But what is the need to speedy delete them? If they've slipped through the cracks long enough to avoid R3 it's extremely unlikely they are actually doing any harm and so there is not going to be any issue with discussing it at RfD to make sure that there isn't some reason to keep it.

1912: 1004:

some reason. G13 is objective (it either is or is not unedited), relatively uncontraversial (we don't want to keep masses of garbage), will have a wide usage We can clean up a bunch of draft pages with it), and has relatively predictable results (items are sustained as deletions).

8636:

For both, I think there needs to be a strong statement that the draft being brief, short, or terse, is not a factor (unlike A11 in mainspace). I don't think draft submission should be a factor. In practice, drafts will be speedied post submission simply because submission draws

4949:

This is not a proper use case for a speedy deletion criteria, which are meant to be uncontroversial. I propose we do a one-time cleanup where we scrape all of the articles which fit this criteria and create a project where we collectively go through and sort these by performing a

4475:

source was released under CC-BY-SA or a compatible free license. I have seen admins incorrectly delete in both of those cases, and indeed I have done it myself, only to undelete when I became aware of the true situation. But such incorrect deletions are, I think reasonably rare.

2319:

changing both, especially the first one. Creators contesting a deletion and them requesting it are not just different concepts; they are nearly opposites. I also agree with Certes here, though I'm not sure how to implement the second change while still keeping the passage simple.

5707:

As DRAFTIFY criteria 2b explicitly mentions things being deleted as something to consider I think they can be. But I will also make my standard pitch that G13 should be changed from a speedy deletion to a PROD to allow editors a chance to find worthy articles worth saving. Best,

2590:

says that redirects like ( disambiguation), ( disambiguation ), disambiguation), ((disambiguation), )disambiguation), X(disambiguation), (Disambiguation), (DISAMBIGUATION), (disambugation) and (dsambiguation) are unneeded. It also notes (in a sentence recently added by me) that

1049:

forces whomever opposes to become the articles guardian angel. It's now 100% on them to cure the defects identified and stand up each time it gets proded. As to the "the author should be reminded before their article gets deleted" I refer you to HasteurBot's work at 5 months

4193:

Agree with the last part, which is why I said "most tags". If editor A PRODs an article "Fails WP:BIO" and editor B contests that the subject meets WP:BIO, then we can assume that editor B was not in favor of keeping the article if it later turns out to be a copyvio. Regards

6926:

announced yesterday they had boldly made this change but doing so was not discussed beforehand and it has not been discussed since. Personally I have no problem with the change or the request, but we should give it another few days to see if there are other opinions first.

5749:). Do you have evidence this behavior is already wide spread? I worry about the unintended consequences (Something draftified as an outcome of AFD becoming invulnerable to G13 because it started in Articlespace, NPPers sending creations in mainspace back to draft space as 7567:

reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about products, books, films, TV programmes, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software

292:

DRAFTPROD would probably also cover non-stale drafts, which are a whole different beast. I think stale drafts can be easily dealt with through an auto-delayed G13, which then feeds into speedy deletion and does not create yet another place with a potential admin backlog.

7553:) could be considered "web content" and thus fall under A7. Personally, I don't think we should differentiate between desktop applications and web applications in 2020, since more and more apps are now created using web technology but are still basically software (cf. 454:

I'm not hugely in favour of making G13 a "delayed" process as right now an admin can clear G13 candidates single-handledly; requiring tagging then waiting a week doubles the work (one person has to check history and logs and tag, then another has to do the same a week

3043:

As a crude analogy, articles failing to pass NFOOTY are (almost) always closed as delete, but we should not have a criterion just for them. Something can be in need of deletion without the whole category being up for deletion on just one or two pairs of eyes. ~

2394:

That looks good, assuming that the list matches the list of CSD templates with no "contest" button. We might have a footnote saying creators can also remove CSD tags that they themselves placed in error, but that might be overcomplicating things for a rare case.

2177:

with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. However, if the sole author blanks a page (other than a userspace page or category page), this can be taken as a deletion request, and the blank page tagged for deletion with

4150:

indicated any disagreement with deletion itself. So it was eligible to be nominated for speedy deletion again.PS: I declined the second one but not because of the previous BLPPROD but on the grounds that the it-wiki version contains a lot of links to coverage in

2956:

and are not neccesarily common enough to warrant the expansion or creation of a criterion here. Also taking Uanfala's comment below about recent activity surrounding them and Thryduulf's comment above about current criteria applicability into consideration: the

1802: 8866:

about the user was initiated). If they were in user space, they could be deleted U5 without a problem. If they were in article space, they could be deleted A11. As it is, my two options are to do a mass MfD for all 11, or to just speedy delete them all under

7324:

Not much experience with templates, but if memory serves "deprecating" a template generally means that people keep using it anyway, causing problems. Thus they tend to be deleted instead. Although disambiguating it might work, are template disambigs a thing?

2952:. To codify which narrow set of disambiguation errors should be speediable and which should not would likely end up being very convoluted (though wugapodes wording seems okay at first glance) and prone to misapplication. Such errors are adequately handled at 6111:

where it's mentioned three times (and possibly merging some of the content there) instead of draftifying which not only removes the information from public view but also creates a red link and leaves people looking for it with no information at all. Regards

1971:, where I still explain the reasons for maintaining it in the dispute. What do you think about it? Of the topic in general and, in the specific case, if an administrator has the right to intervene to directly eliminate the inappropriate speedy deletion? -- 8393:, I think it's a fair point: if something would be speedily nuked in eiother user space or article space, it's unclear why we wouild want to keep it in draft space either. On the other hand, I'd like to see some numbers. One MfD a day? Five? One a month? 1645:

allow for broad interpretation—that is, related navbox templates. It should only apply to templates which are nearly identical copies of each other (i.e., no added parameters, not a navbox for a different iteration of the same television show, etc.).

3906:

expediting the deletion of redirects with one very specific kind of disambiguator. Correct me I'm wrong, but the whole DPL machinery doesn't treat this type of redirect any differently from most other redirects to dab pages, and if the bot flags up

2516: 396:

Replacing G13 with DRAFTPROD seems fine enough. It doesn't effectively do anything but shift the backlog to the right one week. If we want it to cover something other than stale drafts, that a different discussion all together, not related to G13.

7676:

rightly points out. At the point at which you're looking for a determiner between a webapp and a website, you're kind of playing the game of "how much JavaScript can I shove into this site to turn it into a webapp", which I don't think is a great

6696:

should not, in my opinion, because who is to say that a hoax page, especially one created by a new or younger editor, is deliberate and malicious misinformation rather than somebody's idea of a light-hearted joke? This is why I have boldly edited

8169:), so this would be in line with what people seem to want to do. I don't think there would need to be any significant rephrasing to make it work in drafts, just applying it the same way as in articles or userpages should work fine. Any thoughts? 5489:

It's looking increasingly clear that CSD won't be the method used to handle this. However, the problem here really isn't lack of notability. It's factual accuracy. It's that many of these "communities" don't actually exist, and never did exist.

4982:

articles on real populated places being deleted. If we just want to get rid of these as quickly and easily as possible then I'd recommend setting up a project on the lines of what SportingFlyer describes, so they can actually get some review.

1709: 5604:

draft disambiguation pages seems like overkill for what should be a fairly rare use case, it's easier to just say that it doesn't apply - G13 will get it eventually. G14 does apply to other types of non-mainspace disambiguation pages though.

2724:

and the DAB page itself has a (disambiguation) qualifier. I would much rather see a simple robust rule which covered the majority of cases than a more complex one with caveats and exceptions. Anything doubtful can and should be taken to RFD.

165:

doing that at one point?) After all, G13 has a REFUND mechanism built into it, unlike other criteria that also don't require a fixed period of time between tagging and deletion (except A1 and A3) and which are not so easily restored. Regards

5242:

rejection of a recent approach. While CSD may not be the best way forward and these articles will have to be checked by hand, the procedural keepers are a barrier to ensuring false information is expeditiously removed from the encyclopedia.

3927:

This is already covered by G6: uncontroversial maintenance. If anyone objects, they can be restored, but no one would. If you’re sending these to RfD, stop it and just tag it as G6 with an explanation. There’s a 99% chance it’ll be deleted.

2771:. That change should extend R5 to cases such as Fbi (discombobulation) → FBI (disambiguation) without condemning any redirects worth keeping. I'd be equally happy extending R3 but it is already quite lengthy and a new CSD may be better. 2384:

If this looks too detailed, then the list of exceptions can be relegated to a footnote. The templates can be changed accordingly, but I think the information about what is acceptable or not should be explicitly stated in the policy page. –

3593:

The idea that no misspellings of "disambiguation" will slip through the cracks going forward is optimistic. The new criterion would apply to ones created after passage that don't get noticed until after they're no longer newly created. --

1388:

states: "Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days."

8626:

apply to any article that has even one independent reliable source". Logically, on analysis, this sentence is redundant to the existing words, but I have seen this particular catch as one that would have stopped many bad speedy deletion

1986:

I'm not sure about whether this specific deletion is valid, but anyone who's not the page creator (regardless of user rights) can directly intervene in a speedy deletion by removing the CSD tag. Reviewing administrators are no exception.

918:, A few things to puncture your reality distortion bubble: 1. Promising draft was initially enacted as an analog to "Article Rescue Squadron" to help flag down interest/help. I had zero problems with it's intention/desire. I even made 560:. I token edited it 6 months ago to save it from deletion, but deleted it this time as it hadn't been touched since. I also left you a handwritten note in addition to the template explaining this. I'm surprised you felt that was BITEy. -- 2711:

This applies to redirects of any age with a malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifier to a disambiguation page at the basename; that is, anything but (disambiguation) precisely. A few of the very many possibilities are given at

5019:

Some of these are legitimate communities, some aren't. If even one of them is a legitimate community, a blanket CSD criteria is inappropriate as it would not be uncontroversial, and far more than one of them are as the AfDs have shown.

2227:), so I think it can simply be dropped. If, however, it is to stay in the introduction, then it ought to be moved to the paragraph before (which is about requesting deletion) and ideally expanded with a mention of the related criterion 313:

Why would something that doesn't exist "probably cover" anything? Since it doesn't exist it would only cover whatever consensus there was for it to cover and so we, the community, could decide DRAFTPROD would cover what G13 does. Best,

3136:

isn't clear if it only refers to those pointing to DAB pages or other similar redirects) but the Mercury and Cleveland redirects do seem reasonable since people might well try those searches if they don't know WP uses brackets/commas.

7282:

for the other job; or (2) replacing the current template with a deprecation message and creating two new ones (whether modifying copies of the current one or starting from scratch). I have absolutely no preference which is employed.

6339:, i.e. are WikiProjects allowed to designate a certain kind of technical administrative page within their remit for deletion? I think I hazily remember something similar being used in the past although the details escape me. Regards 2263:

on the assumption that editors will use their common sense. But note all of the exceptions are that obvious, and perhaps more importantly, this is a policy page where we really shouldn't be that tolerant of incorrect information. –

1487:

hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days." (emphasis mine), i.e. being an orphan was enough to speedy delete the

3910:

to such redirects as errors then the effect is that this will draw the attention of a wikignome who will come and do what good gnomes do with any misspelling: fix it. This is a good thing, and it won't change whether or not R5 is

2107: 6522:

Hi I'm not sure that vandalism and hoax pages should be in the same criteria, so I think the hoax pages should be moved to the G15 criteria because vandalism and hoaxes are a bit different. Pls let me know your thoughts on this.

5193:

I agree that it is quite a bit of work to handle individual AfDs, however not all AfDs result in a deletion. It would be helpful to know just how many articles are below some sort of standard before making a decision. Perhaps

3819:

to mean "any error in a disambiguator," I fear that introducing a new CSD criterion would only serve to magnify that error. If RFD regulars don't get it right, how can we expect other contributors to understand the nuances? (See

664:

script. Amongst other things the script will remove speedy deletion templates from the restored draft and/or make a token edit to it. This seems to go a long way towards preventing drive-by deletions of recently restored drafts.

8076:, Just to expand a bit on that, there is a large industry of paid editing on wikipedia, where companies or people pay to get articles about themselves into the encyclopedia. They don't pay us, they pay private contractors (see 7279:

under the wrong criterion (bad for accountability and editor retention) or pages will be evaluated against the wrong criterion and deleted when they shouldn't be or not deleted when they should be (both bad for obvious reasons).

8322: 1033:

It's definitely a good idea to replace G13 with DraftPROD. G13 is more hasty and even less overseen than a prospective draftprod. Too much servicable content is deleted by G13 and not enough garbage is deleted from draftspace.

4899:

be notable is outweighed by the known problem of misinformation finding its way into other sources such as Google Maps, which contains hundreds of "unincorporated community" labels which were erroneously applied by Knowledge

6577:, since there are two different criteria handling vandalism and attack pages which are both bad faith creations, I think that vandalism and hoax pages also should have a different criteria, I've provided some example above. 4289:

invalidates later CSD, but if the deprodder is someone uninvolved with creating the page (or has good reasons for objecting), you should probably consider their reasons before you place another red tag of doom on the page.

8465:

for Knowledge. It's not impossible (although unlikely) that, if the subject is notable (I haven't investigated) that it could be rewritten to be an encyclopaedia overview of it. It needs an MfD discussion before deletion.

6307:

I'd call them G7s, handwaving "author" away to "the same group that requested the templates be put there in the first place" as a whole. I can't see how G6 could possibly apply, what with "blanked talk page" specifically

5466:

ing to the county article and/or starting a list therein that explains the existence of UICs in the county but doesn't go into detail (for the claimed need of this CSD criterion is that there is no detail to be had). This

4128:

be declined. If the creator removed the PROD, then this does not preclude speedy deletion because speedy deletion is built upon the assumption that deletion is possible even when the creator objects (unlike PROD).As such,

1798: 4063:

are silent on the matter, but since speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases only, common sense says (to me, anyhow) that deproded articles shouldn't be speedy deleted. Thoughts? Do we need to add a note at WP:CSD? -

1139:

This, I propose that "or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)" be struck from the current description. If added clarity is needed, it would only apply to pages tagged as

981:

If I am ignorant of stuff about HasteurBot, it is because I have very muhc liked every aspect of it that I am aware of. Thank you, for HasteurBot. I think it does a very good job with the flawed concept of draftspace.

2141:

yes, the objections based on pageviews means that these are contentious. That and the issue Certes notes are some of the several reasons these need to be examined individually. They are not suitable for speedy deletion.

8312:

These are not pages that are going to be articles, they're people abusing the servers. The point of draftspace is indeed to work on potential pages, and the game some drunks made up in a bar last night or random people

6056:

Plenty of prods get deleted without the admin looking closely at them. (I'd venture to say the overwhelming majority of G13s do.) What, in practice, stops people from prodding improvable articles on notable subjects?

1926: 1914: 1241:

Please discuss any refinements to the above proposal here, as well as any longer comments that you may have. If you would like to see other changes or enhancements to the G14 rationale, please also discuss them in this

348:

Except that the placement of the tag potentially alerts someone who'd worked on it that the article is at the risk of deletion. This would hopefully cut down on refund requests without really burdening people any more.

4895:

were mass-created within minutes of each other, and we can maintain a list of deleted places for editors who are interested in re-creating them with better sourcing. In my opinion the benefit of keeping articles that

1262:

deliberate instead of accidental (which allows one to more easily fix links to disambiguation page without having to check the deliberate links every single time), a purpose older than DPL bot and independent of it. —

8009:

Hello, I often see pages that are marked with G5 and then get deleted. But the pages themselves are normal, good articles or stubs, which you can't criticize much. Just now 60 fairly good-looking pages were tagged,

2753: 1247:"performing a "disambiguation-like" function" implies to me that the page might need to be converted into a disambiguation page. This need for consideration is a reason to rule out speedy deletion as a solution. -- 1068:, it would not have been G13 eligible. No, we do not need a "DRAFTPROD", when all one has to do to keep a draft from getting deleted is edit it once every six months, and all one has to do even after that is post at 4816:

While this exclusion makes sense for CSD, with so scarce description it will be often difficult to prove that source speak about the same place, so they IMO are still a fair game for AfD during a GNIS-cleanup run.

4507:, as has been established by countless AfD discussions. This is a tricky one to make a criterion for, to avoid making it over-broad and affecting articles on legitimate communities, but here's my first stab at it. 7093:

A few days have passed without objection to changing the text of the template, so, notwithstanding whether the template will be moved or otherwise, I'll proceed with fixing the text as specified at the sandbox.

5472: 8153:. These would be deleted without question in other namespaces, they result in straightforward MfDs that suck up time, and the purpose of drafts is not to have content that unquestionably won't fit in articles. 3980: 3914:

decade old. When all such redirects have been tracked down – and that might have already happened – then there won't be any need for an extra CSD criterion as any new ones that get created will be eligible for

2448:, which resulted in "overturn and relist". Well, there are other seven-day deletions listed under criteria on files, but this is specifically about the "dfu" tag, so we can review other ones in a later time. -- 1939: 2574: 2359:, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is 2234:

The first sentence very emphatically asserts that a creator cannot remove speedy tags. Of course, this is the rule for most cases, but there are several commonly used criteria where this doesn't apply at all:

1875: 7740:; I went digging around the dusty history of CSD for exactly when and why "web content" was added to the first place, and it goes all the way back to mid-2006, with some very 2006-style concerns. "Websites" 7113: 6066:

Looks like these may all have been NPP reviews which properly followed the NPP flowchart. I can't easily source them in a search, they don't seem to pass any SNGs, and the next question in the flow chart is

5529:

I assume G14 applies to pages in the draftspace, correct? Was going to tag a bunch of Draft: pages that have only a single articlespace target, but wanted to get confirmation here first. Thanks as always,

2581: 7638:

the distinction between web applications and websites is not very clear, by contrast whether you use a piece of software through the internet versus downloading and installing it is very clear. Furthermore

1755:

That's totally bizarre. I tried cut & pasting the content into my sandbox in chunks to see if I could tell which portion of the page was causing the issue, but the sandbox never went into the category.

8591: 6556:

Basically, yes. Creating a hoax article in order to deceive readers is no better than vandalizing articles. There is no need for having two different criteria handling obvious bad-faith creations. Regards

2011:

If a page was speedily deleted but you think it should not have been then you should first discuss the matter with the deleting administrator, and if you cannot reach agreement with them there, take it to

1792: 8912:—a total of 7 drafts are nominated. The things I did speedy today were in the realm of copyright infringement. And I guess if a user has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE, it's a G3 deletion rather than IAR. — 8333:

doing the inevitable deletion, and for absolutely no gain. In addition to being terrible by themselves, they actively hinder searches for salvageable content by adding unnecessary noise to sift through.

6717:

into a separate warning template specific to pages that are hoaxes, so new users know specifically what they did wrong and aren't scolded for "INTRODUCING INAPPROPRIATE PAGES!" for an attempt at humor.

4088:

Considering that the article creator can contest a prod (that was the case with the second article) by simply removing the tag I don't believe that in itself is enough to invalidate a speedy deletion.--

8215: 5678:

What is the consensus on using G13 to delete articles that have been moved to draftspace after creation? Deleting articles like this effectively circumvents the typical deletion procedures (AfD/PROD).

2305:, this creates the unwelcome situation where a policy question (who can and cannot decline speedy deletions) is settled on individual template pages without being explicit in the policy page itself. – 2075: 125: 4389:

Is there any evidence that admins are mistakenly deleting non-copyrighted materials without any due diligence at a noticeable level because if not this sounds like a solution in search of a problem?--

4015:

maintenance. Not every redirect that would be covered by this proposed criterion is uncontroversial and not all of them a maintenance, therefore it is absolutely not the case that they fall under G6.

2457: 7976:

handled the overwhelming majority of these for a very long time; he hasn't edited since mid-March, nor performed any admin actions since the end of March; and nobody's stepped forward to take over. —

7310:

I can't understand the frowning upon deprecation, at least in this instance, as that would be significantly more helpful to the people who use it than straight deletion or moving without a redirect.

2412: 768:

except for admin with access to deletespace. Some of the G13s I published at the last moment included referenced articles about national level politicians and villages that were clearly notable, imv

449:

quickly and easily. The system seems to me to work fairly well and doesn't overload the admins. Furthermore, traffic at WP:REFUND is low which suggests that most of these drafts are indeed abandoned.

7752:

to "web content". The primary concerns at the time were a flood of non-notable web forums and similar, and the discussions originally grew out of an expansion of "unremarkable group". An attempt to

5856:'s the best solution. I don't agree with the "send it to AfD" since I would guess the vast majority of draftified articles in mainspace are new and we want to offer the opportunity to improve them. 8780: 8711: 8673: 5252: 3946:(but not always, for the reasons given in other comments on this and similar proposals) uncontroversial but at least most of these are not maintenance and so are very much not covered by G6. G6 is 8622:

is pretty strong, and it is a different issue, albeit a valid issue, in getting taggers and deleting admins to stick to the policy. I suggest consideration of addition words: "The criterion does

5563:

link the new draft that will make the article title ambiguous. I think CSD#G14-ing these pages requires you to dig into these possibilities, and I wonder what the benefit of their deletion is.

2758: 8690: 5301:

is substituting his/her original research for what gnis, a reputable source, says. Now he/she wants to encompass his/her interpretation of such research within the speedy deletion criteria. At

5238: 1836: 8180: 5548:

If others agree with my interpretation then I would support adding a bullet regarding pages in draftspace to the criterion (AFAIR draftspace was not discussed when the criterion was written).

4356:

either. I wouldn't be opposed to mandating the source, because sometimes (especially with G12s) it's dang hard to find the source. It would make our jobs slightly easier, but as SoWhy says we

4011:. That is the foundation upon which CSD is built. There is consensus that G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance, yes, but that means that things deleted under it must be both uncontroversial 1136:. Thus, the current wording to refer to "disambiguation-like" functions serves no purpose and, as a result, it is confusing and leads to misinterpretation by administrators and editors alike. 8654: 8505: 8490: 8474: 8459: 8385: 8360: 8345: 8303: 6358:

Honestly I don't think it's worth the hassle to go through and delete pages that will eventually be recreated anyway. But if you had to I think G6 + IAR would be reasonable enough rationale.

2599:

errors. Many more erroneous (disambiguation) qualifiers can be and have been devised by ingenious and inaccurate editors, a fraction of which have been discovered by diligent and imaginative

479: 116: 8952: 7482:

I want to delete my user account, because I do not know almost English, I wanted to edit with Google translator, but some words always translate poorly for me, please delete neither account

7415:

Or one of the many places the template was undoubtedly used in the past, such as linked in discussions like this. Old page histories might even be confusing to sysops, new and old alike! ~

5000:

per Hut 8.5 and SportingFlyer. I suggest adopting the latter's proposal of having a dedicated project to sort through these stubs and then mass-nominating them for AFD as necessary. Regards

8737: 8608: 7745: 6858:

that it's clearly vandalism" is a really nice bright line to draw, so it makes sense that it's bundled into G3 - if I'm deleting a stupid hoax, it's necessary to mentally justify that it's

8886: 3901:. Now, redirects with misspellings in the disambiguator, whether plausible or not, should generally not be kept because they potentially obstruct search results. If there is a proposal to 2720:

That wording does not cover everything. It does not include X(disambiguation), mentioned in RDAB. Nor does it include redirects to DAB pages not at the basename; that is, where there is a

8909: 8282: 8261: 8244: 8146: 7848:

states that "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.", and in the past i have interpreted this to mean that users are

2927:

Redirects where the word 'disambiguation' is misspelled or otherwise deviates from the standard '(disambiguation)' qualifier. This CSD does not apply to words other than 'disambiguation'.

2678: 2650: 813:

Barkeep, the awful experience is not the driving reason for notification. Post deletion, the link to REFUND is good enough. People who experience the awful experience, I advise reading

8250:

said, I think a search through MfD is a dramatic undercount. People are already deleting these things, just using other criteria. Would be interested in the perspective of MfD regulars.

8199: 4707: 4606: 1097: 8427: 8371: 8233:

about her qualifying for the Olympics). This does lead me to believe that any expansion of U5 into draft space might well be misused to circumvent the non-applicability of A7. Regards

8207:

cost us little and gain us much (okay, we don't get the server space back, but we do set out our stall a more clearly: what we are not should be a clear as what we are, in principle).

7912: 7264:

I'll also mention that, when the issue of a cut-and-paste move does occur, this template remains the best way to identify it when an article history merge is not otherwise required. --

2662: 2654: 8093:

telephone, and let checkusers cross-reference page-creating accounts by validating telephone number. (any IP can edit, but making new pages is special). I believe the most reliable

4423:

compliant unless noncompliance confirmed, not assume noncompliant unless compliance confirmed. Assumption of compliance. And yes it's happened, I didn't just cook this up randomly. -

3825: 1967:

I notice that occasionally some users make speedy deletions in a way, so to speak, saucy and at least bizarre. In my opinion, this is the case of the request that took place recently

3693: 6033: 5586: 5222: 3275:

Or you could just nominate it at RfD - leaving a page you believe to be harmful on the off chance that it might be speedily deletable in future is not benefiting the encyclopaedia.

3258: 2700:; an album title which could have been designed on purpose by a malicious Knowledge editor to puzzle and annoy DABfixing and redirection specialists. I propose, as initial attempt: 2666: 2268: 1447: 797:

Atlantic, a minimum notification of the draft approaching G13 was a good idea, and should be a requirement for G13. This should be automatic, not relying and an editor to PROD it.

7900: 7756: 6410:) suggest even G5 could be in play? Regardless of that, just open an MfD, advertise it widely - and skip the "page tagging" on 10000 pages that would normally be used for MfD. — 4494: 2658: 937:. Either the article is promising enough to recieve edits enough to keep it off the G13 rail (which again is for the bot's purpose is the much more restrictive interpertation of 628:

I strongly suspect that a lot of G13 deletions are being done purely automatically without any human involvement at all. I've had a few cases where I've restored a G13ed draft at

3798: 3741: 2634: 5407:

This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

5350: 2638: 948:

Now as to your pleas and promises, I'd like to drop some further knowledge bombs on you, as it appears you speak from a place of ignorance. The HasteurBot process goes through

458:

That said, I'd definitely be interested in exploring a DRAFTPROD proposal but I'd want it to apply to non-stale drafts too (and/or a new CSD criterion for non-viable drafts). --

6450: 6011: 3821: 2674: 2670: 1784: 1459: 249:

As the stale drafts have been sitting for six months without problems already, adding another week of delay would not cause any issues. We should probably use the mechanism at

8142: 5643:

link to multiple pages. Whatever corner cases exist that might warrant removing a draft disambiguation page don't strike me as the kind of things that need speedy deletion. ~

4330:

Administrators are expected to review all speedy deletion requests for their validity, not just F9, so I'm unsure what you think should be changed. Can you elaborate? Regards

4245: 3782: 3764: 3185:

isn't a guideline/policy – though it probably should be if DPL bot isn't made more permissive – and that the guiding rules of RfD are frequently ignored for no good reason. —

2206:

However, if the sole author blanks a page (other than a userspace page or category page), this can be taken as a deletion request, and the blank page tagged for deletion with

692: 8850: 8828: 8802: 7377:

names and syntax of templates they use frequently and do not normally refer to the documentation at all - see for example the recent example of one of the welcome templates.

6301: 5598: 5572: 5557: 4748:

That should narrow things a bit more. With careful thought I think it's possible to make a useful criterion here. I don't expect it'll pass but I think it's worth exploring.

413: 181:

We're talking about new, or at least low-volume, editors here (because no-one who knows how badly WP works touches the Draft: namespace). Deletion and then expecting them to

7520: 6367: 4469: 3347: 2484: 2464:

I would be in favor of allowing anyone to convert any 7-day speedy tag to an FfD for any reason, removing the speedy tag and replacing it with an FfD tag in the process. --

1904: 750:. There is no hurry. G13 exists so that there are not tens of thousands of abandoned BLP and copyrights violating material having around indefinite, like there was pre-G13. 527: 7825:'s suggestion (as web-delivered applications are not a website), however I think that A7 should cover patently unnotable applications. Phone apps are a dime a dozen now. -- 7349: 7334: 5614: 5362: 5094: 4398: 2151: 1302:

be useful (as I have mentioned above) is "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo (surname)". The latter of them does list people who could be plausibly referred to simply as "Foo".

882:

became the subject of inflammatory arguments, involving people who wanted to quickly delete all deletable drafts, people who wanted to permanently save all savable drafts,

278:

This is why I think we should repeal G13 and institute a new PROD tag (DRAFTPROD). Makes the whole process transparent and it could certainly be put into a category. Best,

7506: 6762: 6464: 4486: 4412: 4097: 3993: 3960: 3507: 2508: 1770: 1511: 1437: 762: 715: 244: 208: 7222: 6973:

includes hoaxes. That seems sufficient enough reason to me to include them together. Whether attack pages should be a separate criterion or not is a separate question. --

6738: 6493: 6401: 5875: 5701: 3550: 3524: 3079: 3065: 3038: 3023: 2910: 2895: 2101: 1078: 777: 547: 467: 436: 7059: 6416: 6321: 5441: 5314: 4430: 4068: 2800: 2646: 2642: 2129: 2049: 2035: 643: 7963: 7948: 7934: 7760:

think there's a place in A7 for removing this kind of content, but it may be time to reconsider how we phrase it to avoid drawing 2006-era lines around 2020 content. ~

7436: 7171: 6936: 6180: 6155: 6123: 6090: 6051: 5922: 5717: 5206: 5187: 5158: 5126: 4973: 4826: 4455: 4299: 4278: 4083: 4024: 3974: 1996: 1722: 826: 792: 8121: 8106: 8087: 7890: 7189: 7157: 6350: 4763: 4714: 4384: 4225: 4205: 4188: 3848: 3636: 3423: 3381: 3270: 1946: 1603: 1229: 273: 224: 194: 176: 7980: 7143: 7125: 6509: 6383: 6220: 5838: 5824: 5776: 5762: 5629: 5029: 3511: 1626: 1372: 1311: 1013: 991: 970: 783:

interested could attempt to find abandoned articles on notable topics that could be improved and made live. That feels like a benefit to the encylopedia to me. Best,

615: 590: 569: 8923: 8903: 7939:

Then what are other alternatives besides PRODding, FFD, and proposing another file criterion (probably to surpass F8's abilities)? What else can be done about F8? --

7884: 7408: 7386: 7364: 7319: 7305: 7291: 7273: 7259: 7241: 6483: 4341: 4114: 3603: 3360: 3284: 2329: 2157: 1980: 734: 674: 486: 8068: 8051: 7610: 7103: 7088: 7074: 6982: 6965: 6910: 6792: 6551: 5659: 5065: 4937: 4920: 4884: 4856: 4773: 3621: 3252: 2389: 2302: 2248: 1956: 1667: 1277: 518:

checked. Also, limiting it to stale drafts would prevent the harrassment of page creators who are actively improving the drafts such as adding more references, imv

379: 358: 343: 323: 308: 287: 7998: 7813: 7732: 7542: 6568: 5279: 5246: 5218: 4794: 4369: 2404: 2309: 2292: 2259:(these are just the ones I know about). This means that the bolded sentence is patently wrong. I guess one approach is to avoid adding additional instructions per 8894:

should never be used in combination with speedy deletion, and there is no apparent reason why they can't be bundled into a single MfD if they can't wait for G13.

8571: 8556: 8535: 8439: 8406: 7834: 7657: 7463: 6429:

to obtain a consensus, and in lieu of individually tagging every page a notification to relevant noticeboards/WikiProjects should suffice per IAR/convenience. --

6243: 6061: 4992: 4905:

If this proposal is presented to the community, we should have a clear description for those who are unfamiliar with GNIS isssues. I've started an essay draft at

4840: 4811: 3495: 2821: 1701: 1358: 902: 843: 7793: 7702: 6882: 6848: 6813: 6614: 6590: 5982: 3161: 3138: 1827: 1399: 961:

and those who see reedeemable benefit in these drafts. Step your volunteer efforts up and be the shield and guardian by providing a single edit every 5 months.

579:

All a new user would know is that their draft had been deleted. And, if I had a visceral WTF moment, I expect they would too. Reducing the WTF factor is what

158: 8014:

one of them. So I don't see it as a reason to delete a good page just because it was created by a sock puppet. Can someone explain this to me in more detail? --

7776: 6269: 5946: 5518: 5050: 5011: 4757: 4732: 4168: 3687: 3459: 1043: 8367: 5499: 5484: 5293: 4687: 3343: 3339: 1810:

article. An exception is if a topic is or was known by a name that would meet such a title or if a redirect is the result of a page move less than 30 days ago.

1734: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 7628: 6830: 4737:

That's a good point about population. It shouldn't be excluded just because it's in the infobox, not the article. I'm going to make 2 changes to my proposal:

3657: 2355:

with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in

2074:. Is there a CSD applicable, or could there be an amendment to a criterion to allow these to be deleted easily? (For transparency, I should point out that at 8166: 7130:

That's a fair point, which all the more makes this particular template name rather confusing; "copypaste" is vague and (as Bsherr said above) doesn't really

5391: 4052: 2940: 2862: 2841: 2067: 8598:

forbids content which isn't related to Knowledge or its goals, and writing and developing encyclopedia articles is absolutely related to Knowledge's goals.

8023: 4119:

True but Eureka Lott has a point as well. CSD is by definition for uncontroversial cases. PROD is similar in that regard. Also, both PROD and CSD allow any

3866: 3717: 3409: 3329: 2997: 1058: 8841:

that they occur frequently enough that they cause a significant issue at that XfD. Unless and until you actually nominate them that evidence cannot exist.

7491: 3588: 3441: 3311: 1764: 8664:

as not a common problem, and even some examples given are not clear cut. Though I think that U5 should still apply to userspace material with an AFC tag.

7048: 3937: 2780: 832:

who use our internal search function. I've seen a large proportion of drafts improved by other people, who would not have sen them had they been deleted.

8222: 8150: 7862: 7592: 6107:, even if those are mostly short mentions. However, someone looking for information about this building will be served far better by redirecting this to 4718: 3502: 3104: 2980: 5539: 4074:

I don't see a PROD on the first one, but the second was a BLPPROD, which I don't view as invalidating a CSD (it just says "this BLP has no references")

3832: 3197: 2087: 8231: 5327:

So far we've cleaned up a lot of stubs that were never populated, the most egregious of which IMO was a wash in rural Arizona. It's generally fine for

5255:

of these permastubs that are in need of deletion and redirection. Not all counties have as many of these as El Dorado, of course, but at the same time

4818: 4683: 3575: 3227: 1641:

should be updated to reflect the amended wording of the T3 policy, not the other way around. My concern is that the current wording of the T3 template

8227: 6800:, so are undisclosed paid articles created in violation of the Terms of Use, but we have repeatedly failed to get consensus to speedily delete those. 5420:

These permastubs aren't just wrong, they actively detract from the encyclopedia as a whole. Let's say you want to learn more about the communities of

4460:

How frequent are unexplained G12/F9 requests? Back in the day where I did process CSDs, I usually did find a link - or several - in the deletion tag.

753:

Proponents of DRAFTPROD are not explaining what the objective is, and proposers of repealing G13 are not explaining why the old problem won’t recur. —

6335:

Imho, neither. I don't think this is a question for CSD as the BOTREQ discussion shows. Instead, this probably is a question that should be asked at

5767:

Underhanded feels like a mighty strong motive to ascribe to something needing to be considered in the very guidelines surrounding the process. Best,

3922: 3414:

How will this meet the frequent and non-redundant requirements (not advice, requirements) given all the evidence in the comments above that it wont?

2071: 4721:, determining whether a place really fails GEOLAND requires some extensive digging (since the place might have been populated in the past). Regards 1588: 1425: 1418: 8720:

Userspace/Draftspace pages that have <0% chance of being accepted to mainspace and put them up for MFD to build the Frequent case. I salute you

7296:

I can understand that. How about moving it without a redirect, then? The existing links are rather limited. TfD generally frowns on deprecation. --

6455:

As I commented elsewhere, you need to get consensus for these deletions. They do not fall under any speedy deletion criteria, and nor should they.

4317: 1635: 1529: 1392: 8011: 4174:

CSD being applied; not everyone follows the flowchart strictly, and (for example) a declined prod shouldn't protect a copyvio from being zapped.

3070:

This whole group (the word "disambiguation" being misspelled) should be up for deletion on just one pair of eyes though. That's the proposal. --

2685: 2169:

from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the

1331: 199:

I will repeat my long stated contention that G13 should go away and be replaced by a DRAFTPROD which would sit for a week on stale drafts. Best,

8645:

reviewers. To ignore such a page is to sort of assent to its continued existence. To REJECT such a page means work that is plainly wasted. --

8366:

userspace, there should be no reason to expect they'd do otherwise in draft/AFC space. And while I can give more examples (in 2 minutes I found

3177:

get a fair number of views and the search results page is very unhelpful in these scenarios; the redirects would be quite useful if not for the

1708:

I was planning on writing an essay on T3 to help understand how it should be used and eliminate some confusion and in the process I watchlisted

1256: 1292: 4310:

It should not be enough to simply say "this is a copyright violation." There should be an actual visual review and the violation confirmed. -

4146:). The second one was, as Primefac correctly points out, not a PROD but as BLPPROD that was removed merely on procedural grounds, not because 1741:. I've looked through the content and I can't find out what tag is causing it to be categorized for deletion. Can I get a second set of eyes? 8329:. No amount of editing can fix these, and it's a waste of everyone's time to go through the motions of declining, letting them sit 6 months, 6249: 3335: 6898: 3965:

I agree. I hate considering G6 csd because most of them take a lot of work in order to establish that it really is non-controversial. Best,

3372:

Whatever your personal opinion of the frequency requirement, it would need the consensus of a well-attended policy discussion to remove it.

1212: 8484: 8453: 8379: 8339: 8255: 8174: 5673: 4263: 1220:. These are sometimes useful and other times not, and discussion should be what decides which. Speedy deletion is not for ambiguous cases. 8618:

in principle, with precise wording to be proposed and agreed first. Extending A11 to draftspace is pretty easy. The existing wording at

7903:

that were tagged under criterion F8? Is there an explanation for this if the relations between Knowledge and Commons would not suffice? --

2347:; only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the 1337:

They are not the same. Importantly, musical recordings are NOT eligible for A9 if any of the contributing musical artists has an article.

8135: 6536: 941:) should be easy to accomplish. 3. G13 is not driven by any editor ego (and shame on you for implying as such). It explicitly driven off 235:

If an author wants to work slowly on a draft, with G13 6 month deadlines, they can move it to their userspace and remove AfC templates. —

213:

I'm agreeing with you but that problem cannot be solved by adding some kind of delay to G13 but by repealing G13 altogether, no? Regards

107:

If a draft is to be deleted as abandoned (i.e. it's stale for six months), how much time should be allowed for the author to work on it?

47: 17: 8141:

is no mistaking what would be A11 or U5 candidates and zero chance they'll ever become valid articles. For recent examples of both, see

7112:

No. Not all copy-and-paste moves are copyright violations. If the editor who copied and pasted the content provided attribution per the

5797:. However this is, of course, a discussion for a different forum. This discussion has established that mainspace to draftspace articles 3243:

I do not have the slightest object to "Tzar", which is a perfectly good English word. My objection is to "disambaguation", which isn't.

1064:

The above is not "one minute". It is over 200,000 minutes. If, in any one of those minutes, anyone had cared enough to edit the article

740:

If a draft is to be deleted as abandoned (i.e. it's stale for six months), how much time should be allowed for the author to work on it?

6254: 4042: 2445: 1084: 848:

I think REFUND is pretty good, far better than not having it. I have used it a couple of times and can not see how it could be easier.

492: 3116:

expanding R3 or G6. An exception as noted can be if it has non-trivial edit history. Maybe this should also apply to other types like

929:

immunizes it from any G13 action flies in the face of the consensus building and generally accepted collaberative environment. I have

8213: 7749: 7741: 2733: 491:

I am one of the people who put the the most effort into patrolling (and postponing) prospective G13s. The way I work is that I use

8229: 7148:

Yeah, I think this template should be deprecated with a note to be more specific - e.g. if it's a copyright violation use G12, etc.

2078:

there is an editor who opposes deletion on the grounds of pageviews. I suppose this makes the matter contentious, but perhaps not).

8226:

article, it would have been a potential A7 (and not even a clear one at that, considering the sourcing one can find on GNews, like

2428:(dfu), which was first nominated for deletion back in 2009, is misused in some way. Furthermore, I question it being listed under 2217: 2189: 1476: 1443: 4211:(especially if the grounds for the prod and deprod don't speak to the validity of the tag). I think we're on the same page here. 3450:

pointless expanding of non-controversial maintenance criteria when we already have a criteria explicitly for this type of stuff.

2425: 2414: 1738: 1571:

of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for

1547:

of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for

1502:

I think the policy should be changed to match the template but my main concern is that the policy and template are consistent. --

8871:. The latter is a nuclear option I'd only use if the user got to the point where they were going to be blocked indefinitely for 5894: 5075:

search has been done, and it's really easy to derail a bulk nomination. Centralising the cleanup will make things a lot easier.

4157:, a RS newspaper, which might be sufficient to let the article survive AFD if native speakers can assess those sources. Regards 3334:

The patent nonsense speedy deletion criterion is used fairly frequently, as I write there have been four in the last 24 hours:

2489:

Yes, this is already the current practice (and has been for pretty much the past decade). I'm opposed to codifying it because

1962: 4713:

I understand the idea behind that proposal but I don't think this is really something CSD can handle adequately. For example,

2874:. There will be no incoming links to such redirects more than 5-6 weeks old. That's how long it now takes me to cycle through 8815: 8767: 8754: 8723: 8633:

that if the draft would be speedy deleted if a usersubpage, then it should be similarly speediable as a draft page, is sound.

8480: 8449: 8420: 8375: 8335: 8251: 8170: 6725: 5898: 5425: 5038: 4717:

would fall under the proposed criterion despite apparently being a place 103 people lived in 2010. As you yourself proved at

1844: 1840: 7925:

Presumably because it isn't a quick process - the patrolling admin has to verify about 11 different things about each file.

6388:

IAR should never be used in combination with speedy deletion, nor should it ever be used for a large number of changes (see

418:

Fully in support of repeal-and-replace (G13/DRAFTPROD, not Obamacare). Also happy to restrict its use to stale drafts only.

7682:

used the example earlier of Google Docs, and I thought some more about that as well. I think actually, on reflection, Docs

6440: 3544: 3489: 2478: 1869: 6230:, not really, no. They are moved to Draft space as an alternative to deletion, after all - think of it as a 6-month PROD. 4375:

suspected copyright violation (if plausible). This wouldn't preclude speedy deletion if a source is found/provided later.

4038:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1235: 8833:

That doesn't change anything at all - if you want to expand CSD you need evidence that the things you want to delete are

8321:

of those things seems like the bigger problem. On a quick search through declined AFC submissions, for instance, I found

6150: 6085: 6006: 5870: 5345: 5182: 5121: 5089: 4968: 4766:

as it was unsourced and failed verification, but I agree with the CDP exclusion since they're often considered notable. –

4390: 4237: 4089: 3584:

narrow scope. I would definitely support King of Hearts's broader proposal, but that would need a separate discussion. –

8186: 8157:

is people trying to shoehorn these into G3 or G11 deletions, with an occasional straightforward deletion summary citing

7025:(now deleted properly as G12) there are others who think that as well. Should this template be either deleted (to avoid 4403:

At the moment, not that I know of; the only admin I know who was repeatedly doing so was recently desysopped by ArbCom.

3320:

nonsense criteria even though it's not common (at least not properly applied). I think this criteria would be helpful.

3218:

bias to American English on Knowledge. If this means a redirect remaining for a time no harm is done to the project. --

3002:

That just means they should be deleted, not that they all can and should be uncontroversially and obviously done so. ~

1521:

Since there doesn't appear to be much interest in this topic compared to the one above it, I will try a different tack.

7430: 7216: 7065:. Copy-paste move is just an ambiguous variant. We should probably move that template and correct the relevant text. -- 6476: 6314: 6261: 5896: 3681: 3112:

maybe a bit redundant to R3 and G6 (per below) but indeed per JHunterJ most of these are deleted anyway, alternatively

3059: 3017: 2741: 2336:

I think the exceptions can be accommodated without that much extra instructions, something like the following could do:

6069:

Is notability borderline, or do you suspect some information not available to you is likely to demonstrate notability?

1927:

Knowledge talk:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020#Special CSD criteria for bad April Fools' humor (or humor in general)

1915:

Knowledge talk:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020#Special CSD criteria for bad April Fools' humor (or humor in general)

5892: 3301:

been completed the number of candidates will plummet. I can't see this situation coming up, say, a few times a week.

1405:

Can anyone shed any light on how this apparent discrepancy came to be and how do folks think we should deal with it?

1322:

They seem to be the same thing but for different subjects why don't we just merge them into 1 criteria to save space

683:

If I had my way, I'd expand PROD to cover all non-talk namespaces and exempt PRODs in Draft from the only once rule.

532:

Wow, I just got hit by G13 on a draft I wrote. Seeing this from the author side, I have to say it's pretty rude and

141: 8040:

system that essentially punishes those who abide by their bans more than those who seek to circumvent them. Regards

6099:(which is part of the deletion policy) based on what is most helpful to readers looking for a certain subject. Take 5741:

to the move), and then G13ed it, then they've pulled off one of the best tricks in all the land. This seems like a

4845:

I would suggest treating GNIS mirrors the same as GNIS, otherwise someone could prevent deletion simply by adding a

4140: 2196:, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. 6445: 2684:

I propose a new CSD item to get such redirects deleted more efficiently than now. R5 and higher are available; see

949: 102: 2625:

RFD has recently been flooded with misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers. They invariably get deleted, sometimes

1184: 7529: 6626:

It's worth noting, though, that there are two different sub-templates with associated warning messages for G10 -

6275:

Does G6 adequately cover this situation, or would the following proposed modification of G8 be more appropriate?

5900: 5817: 5694: 5104: 2582:

Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criterion R5: Redirects with incorrect temporal keywords

2117: 129: 7753: 7645:

Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content

6257:

contains 10,000+ file talk pages that: were mass-created (using AWB) in early 2011; contain no content except a

6040:

and could've (and should've) been merged (or redirected) to that film's article instead of draftifying. Regards

2961:

criterion arguably already covers new ones, while old ones may have hidden nuances worthy of examination at RFD.

1491:...whereas the current T3 template says that the template must be a substantial duplication of another template 1464:

Thanks. That discussion is a bit hard to follow. Consensus there at the time seemed to be that templates should

8947: 8004: 7808: 6949: 5149:

section. Perhaps making a pass through each state and marking them as non-notable would be a good first step?

4954:

search and then bulk-nominate all those which fail the criteria, similar to what we've been doing in the past.

4481: 4450: 4273: 4143: 2737: 2525: 137: 6819:

there is no clear-cut way to determine whether an article was the result of undisclosed paid editing. Regards

5962: 5284:

Then speedy deletion is ipso facto the incorrect remedy. New critiera must be (reasonably) uncontroversial. --

3029:

the first, that they should be deleted. Adding the CSD criterion helps the project avoid unnecessary RfDs. --

121: 8208: 7247: 6990: 2112: 1352: 6970: 6136:

does not apply. It also sends a clear signal to the author that their work isn't quite ready for mainspace.

5145: 2785:

I would agree with that to, it doesn't matter of there's a primary topic or not, the same principals apply.

8448:, which I might delete U5 if it wasn't already submitted to AfC. I'll let other people weigh in from here. 8444:

I don't want to overwhelm this discussion, but to use another better example of what I'm getting at here's

6711: 5961:

Another way to see a log of articles moved to draftspace, optionally filtered by user, is with my script's

5421: 5141: 2595:

logs all links to DAB pages except ones precisely through a correctly-formed (disambiguation) qualifier as

1761: 1696: 1662: 1177: 1154: 746:

The author should get notification, 1-4 weeks before it’s deletion, explaining the policy, and pointing to

6071:

If not, PROD or AfD is recommended. These all seem to qualify, IMO. Are you saying they should go to AfD?

4926:

research by the tagging user or reviewing admin and these articles don't appear to fit that bill. Regards

3873:

I really don't see why this is needed. Just to first make sure we're on the same page terminologically: a

3432:

if a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is

7511:

You are apparently better at Spanish, so I recommend just contributing to the Spanish Knowledge instead.

6956:). Having separate criteria for different types of vandalism has no benefit and just muddies the waters. 6287: 6020:

explicitly cannot be applied if the subject is notable and the article could be improved by editing (cf.

5397:

Furthermore, you're misunderstanding the policy on original research. The first line of the policy says,

4630:

The subject of the article is a "populated place" or "populated place (historical)" locale listed in the

4549:

The subject of the article is a "populated place" or "populated place (historical)" locale listed in the

4048: 2972: 2356: 2193: 1340:

On the other hand organizations and events ARE eligible for A7 even of the key people DO have articles.

1273: 537: 375: 339: 304: 269: 8221:

in favor of preventing people from using Knowledge as a webhost but the potential for abuse seems high:

5229:

has been passed on from the mass-creators to those of us interested in geographic places and care about

933:

problem with promising draft being used once to defer deletion, but there comes a time when you have to

8941:

occurs there.Very much a solution in search of a problem, and one that wouold do mo9re harm than good.

7840: 5424:. You scroll to the bottom of the page and open the navbox to take a look at each of them, and you see 3855:

I've gone ahead and split comments from the supports and opposes for readability, feel free to revert.

2567: 1851:

I'm not yet sure how to handle redirects from moves, except that older ones can certainly be deleted. –

38: 5319:

The problem is that it's been found/it's general consensus that GNIS isn't actually a reliable source

2517:

Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers

1363:

This has been proposed many times, have a look in the archives for the reason it has never been done.

328:

But then just delaying G13 would have the same practical effect without introducing extra paperwork. —

8821: 8773: 8707: 8669: 7487: 6731: 5594: 5535: 4801:

If we're going to do this then it should exclude articles which cite any source other than the GNIS.

3874: 3562:

in principle, this feels like housekeeping to me? I don't see what horror might arise if we do this.

2013: 1680:"Templates that are not being employed in any useful fashion" from both the template and the policy. 939:

any edit in the past 6 months disqualifies the page from being eligible for G13, not just "bot edits"

922: 872:, and experienced editor would presumably be attesting that there was no such problem. Regrettably, 8479:

Then we have different interpretations of that user's intentions, I just don't see it. Fair enough.

7011:"copy/paste page moves" deletion. However, my immediate thought when reading that is more akin to a 1395:

includes an additional condition: "as a template that is not being employed in any useful fashion".

133: 6435: 5310: 5239:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_9#Systematic_inclusion_of_GNIS_unincorporated_communities

4346:

I suspect it's something along the lines of requiring that a source be provided, but that's not on

3861: 3793: 3777: 3736: 3712: 3539: 3484: 2988:. These discussions always end up with "close as delete", which is the point of speedying them. -- 2816: 2729: 2473: 1864: 876: 866: 855: 804: 441:

I suppose what you're getting at is "how much time should an editor have to resume work on a draft

411: 5409:

Research to determine that these places are not communities, as part of a deletion discussion, is

4785:, but this sounds like a temporary thing (for the most part), so perhaps it should be X3 instead. 4695:

name's meaning. However, these are less clearcut and risk making the criterion not uncontestable.

2622:

item 3, another possibility, contains an element of discretion: "unambiguously created in error".

2275:

I think we need a rule that a creator may remove a speedy deletion tag if and only if there is no

7477: 7330: 6891: 6701: 6486:. So you certainly will want to have some automated process that verifies your assumptions. -- 6142: 6077: 5998: 5888: 5862: 5337: 5256: 5174: 5113: 5081: 4960: 4465: 4394: 4241: 4093: 3882: 3609: 3155: 2794: 2348: 2170: 2083: 1831: 1757: 1455: 1433: 1380: 1317: 1144: 688: 661: 8863: 3437:. A new, barely-used criterion for speedy deletion is not a solution for overeager relisters. — 3214: 3213:

in the name without checking dictionaries to see if it was an alternative spelling to Tsar (see

886:

who I think complained at undeclared backwater policy changes that undermined his very valuable

7426: 7212: 7022: 6887:

I can't make heads or tails of this discussion, but is there a consensus to create and link to

6407: 5302: 5056:

be time consuming (even when they do exist). There is no need to impose an arbitrary deadline.

4220: 4183: 3989: 3933: 3677: 3467:, but too narrow as proposed. I would construct R5 as follows: "This applies to redirects from 3455: 3055: 3013: 2057: 190: 154: 4643:

The subject of the article is neither an incorporated community nor a census-designated place.

2875: 8686: 7001: 6991: 6680: 6389: 6363: 5025: 4822: 3760: 3248: 3143: 2891: 2749: 2494: 1818: 1039: 773: 523: 8097:

of a UPE is their failure to return personable (non-robotic) conversation when engaged. --

7116:, there is no copyright violation (unless of course the original is a copyright violation). 4534:"populated place" locales with no substantive content and no history of substantive content. 2696: 2690: 8810: 8787: 8762: 8703: 8665: 8162: 7858: 7483: 6923: 6720: 5590: 5531: 5524: 4427: 4314: 4305: 3653: 3173:

more permissive with misspellings of the disambiguating qualifier. These sort of redirects

2600: 2045: 1976: 1728: 1718: 1203:

outcome. The change would mean G14 would fail the first two requirements for CSD criteria.

1165: 5589:, which I think pretty clearly falls into the ok cases outlined above, was just declined. 2094: 8: 8899: 8846: 8798: 8650: 8590:

The idea of expanding U5 to draftspace has also been suggested and rejected before, e.g.

8567: 8531: 8501: 8470: 8435: 8356: 8299: 8102: 8064: 8019: 7973: 7959: 7944: 7930: 7908: 7853:

we should say this in the main CSD page, since that could help editors salvage articles.

7606: 7382: 7345: 7315: 7287: 7167: 7153: 7015: 6932: 6906: 6650: 6640: 6460: 6430: 6397: 6216: 6104: 5811: 5772: 5713: 5688: 5625: 5568: 5553: 5306: 5263: 5061: 4917: 4906: 4880: 4853: 4770: 4380: 4153: 4020: 3970: 3956: 3856: 3788: 3772: 3731: 3707: 3632: 3534: 3531: 3479: 3476: 3419: 3377: 3280: 2935: 2906: 2858: 2837: 2811: 2468: 2465: 2453: 2352: 2210: 2182: 2174: 2147: 2076:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Already released "upcoming" redirects

2031: 1952: 1900: 1852: 1599: 1368: 1252: 1208: 987: 898: 822: 788: 758: 354: 319: 283: 240: 204: 6839:

watching this discussion; I just don't have anything to add beyond my initial response.

5251:

To further demonstrate the scale of this problem, in one county alone I have identified

4059:

are currently up for speedy deletion, and both were previously proded and deproded. The

3530:

likely to be autocomplete entries in the search bar that we should try to declutter. --

583:

is all about. Giving them a week's prior notice seems like an easy way to do that. --

8945: 8413: 8118: 8084: 7845: 7806: 7728: 7516: 7326: 7185: 7139: 7121: 7084: 7044: 6961: 6844: 6786: 6660: 6630: 6584: 6547: 6530: 6490: 6330: 6272:

to delete these pages and was asked to seek a wider discussion, which I am doing here.

6137: 6072: 6029: 6025: 5993: 5882: 5857: 5790: 5724: 5468: 5332: 5194: 5169: 5168:

at a bulk AfD just how much work has gone into deciding a stub isn't actually notable.

5108: 5076: 4955: 4867: 4790: 4479: 4461: 4448: 4408: 4365: 4295: 4271: 4079: 3599: 3430:

Not remotely frequent enough. To those saying these waste the time of editors at RFD,

3325: 3148: 3075: 3034: 2993: 2787: 2325: 2136: 2079: 1992: 1781: 1622: 1584: 1507: 1451: 1429: 1414: 1307: 1288: 1225: 1173: 1105: 1073: 711: 684: 670: 611: 606:/your draft. I understand now that was not the case. Thank you for clearing that up. -- 587: 565: 544: 463: 432: 8872: 8733: 8595: 7830: 7422: 7208: 7177: 6499: 6298: 6021: 5932: 5928: 5835: 5758: 5322: 5137: 4504: 4232:

At the very least verifiable copyright violations and articles that are eligible for

4212: 4175: 4147: 3985: 3929: 3919: 3845: 3673: 3585: 3451: 3051: 3009: 2498: 2386: 2306: 2265: 2098: 1822: 1348: 1104:, rightly and operating conservatively with respect to the current wording, declined 1054: 1009: 966: 398: 186: 150: 7989:) on the category page sufficient to work this backlog or are there any gotcha's? -- 2679:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Aulus Plautius (dismabiguation)

2651:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 29#Harry Stanley (disammbiguation)

8919: 8882: 8682: 8317:

on Knowledge clearly aren't going to be pages. Making people jump through hoops to

7789: 7697: 7570: 7502: 7459: 7404: 7360: 7301: 7269: 7255: 7237: 7099: 7070: 6978: 6758: 6747: 6690: 6359: 6100: 5226: 5072: 5021: 4951: 4056: 3756: 3703: 3617: 3520: 3515:? That sounds reasonable, though it's a major extension of the original proposal. 3431: 3392: 3266: 3244: 3206: 3178: 3121: 2887: 2883: 2853:, especially as RfD is not overloaded and these are almost never actually harmful. 2850: 2776: 2745: 2721: 2630: 2596: 2400: 2288: 2125: 2019: 1968: 1688: 1654: 1124:, noted or have noted in that RfD discussion and other recent RfD discussions, the 1117: 1069: 1035: 769: 747: 657: 629: 519: 446: 8808:

that will never be submitted and if they are, never pass our notability criteria.

4910: 2688:. A CSD rule would need to be carefully worded to exclude valid redirects such as 915: 8699: 8619: 8327:

Draft:You Know?: Decoding 'Knowing' in The English Professor/Student Relationship

8277: 8239: 8046: 7879: 7854: 7587: 7546: 7530: 7033: 6825: 6656:, whereas "Joe Schmoe is a conniving rapscallion and an utter smeghead" would be 6609: 6563: 6378: 6345: 6279:

This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Knowledge, and in particular:

6268:

except to mislead viewers seeing a blue link into thinking something is there. I

6175: 6166: 6118: 6046: 5941: 5917: 5750: 5742: 5514: 5495: 5437: 5275: 5202: 5154: 5006: 4932: 4836: 4753: 4727: 4703: 4602: 4424: 4350: 4336: 4325: 4311: 4200: 4163: 4129: 4109: 4065: 3837: 3829: 3649: 3129: 3099: 2663:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 29#Dick Doyle (disambiguiation)

2655:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 29#Chris Wood (disambiguuation)

2490: 2260: 2041: 2003: 1972: 1714: 1327: 1269: 1109: 1086: 887: 371: 335: 300: 265: 219: 171: 7715:) and a desktop application that happens to use the web or the internet (e.g. a 6165:

deciding to draftify because incubation is explicitly listed as an alternative (

2351:

button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the

2173:

button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the

149:

What's the haste here? The whole point is that it's already sat for six months.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

8895: 8842: 8794: 8747: 8646: 8563: 8540: 8527: 8497: 8466: 8431: 8390: 8352: 8314: 8295: 8195: 8111: 8098: 8073: 8060: 8031: 8015: 7994: 7986: 7955: 7940: 7926: 7920: 7904: 7688: 7602: 7378: 7341: 7311: 7283: 7180:

and get their thoughts on how best to remove/modify this template's use in TW.

7163: 7149: 6928: 6917: 6902: 6517: 6456: 6393: 6227: 6212: 6017: 5803: 5768: 5746: 5731: 5709: 5680: 5621: 5580: 5564: 5549: 5480: 5289: 5057: 4914: 4876: 4850: 4767: 4376: 4016: 3966: 3952: 3841: 3816: 3727: 3628: 3415: 3396: 3373: 3276: 3187: 3182: 3133: 3125: 3117: 2949: 2932: 2902: 2854: 2833: 2713: 2626: 2587: 2559: 2449: 2143: 2027: 2023: 1948: 1896: 1884:

This is much too broad and fails the objective and uncontestable requirements:

1595: 1364: 1248: 1204: 1132:

is to link to disambiguation pages from article pages and not be botslapped by

998: 983: 909: 894: 893:

I still think it is desirable to allow for the sorting of promising drafts. --

818: 784: 754: 580: 533: 350: 315: 279: 250: 236: 200: 8446:

User:Jay neir/sandbox/What is K to 12’s Technical-Vocational-Livelihood Track?

6103:

for example: There are plenty of mentions of this building in various sources

5736:

I don't think this question has been asked directly. A plain text reading of

5331:

though there are some issues with that as well, such as incorrect placenames.

2667:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Girardia (disambigiation)

8942: 8891: 8868: 8551: 8401: 8267: 8158: 8115: 8081: 8077: 8036: 7870: 7803: 7724: 7640: 7625: 7512: 7392: 7194: 7181: 7135: 7117: 7080: 7040: 6957: 6840: 6808: 6797: 6776: 6543: 6504: 6487: 6426: 6411: 6336: 6238: 6133: 6129: 6096: 6037: 5935:

does the same but only lists draftifying done using Evad37's script. Regards

5853: 5848: 5737: 5459: 5414: 5359: 5267: 5243: 5041:" could work. Has anyone developed a list or count of applicable articles? -- 4786: 4476: 4445: 4404: 4361: 4291: 4268: 4135: 4075: 4060: 3898: 3595: 3570: 3404: 3367: 3321: 3223: 3071: 3030: 2989: 2953: 2878:(my first run through took 8 months), and all such links turn up there. They 2611: 2607: 2372: 2321: 2244: 2063: 1988: 1778: 1609: 1580: 1503: 1410: 1303: 1284: 1221: 1093: 942: 839: 814: 730: 698: 666: 607: 597: 584: 561: 557: 541: 509: 459: 419: 8681:

as A11 is a bit hard to define, its not used all that much in mainspace imv

3612:, it's difficult to devise a rigorous and efficient search for such titles. 2659:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 29#Slimane (disambigition)

1424:

After a bit of historical research, it seems like that template reflects an

8875:. So, I guess, here comes a data point with frequency of MfD nominations. — 8729: 8601: 8094: 7977: 7896: 7826: 7720: 7712: 7673: 7650: 7454:

rather than recreated, to preserve attribution). Can we agree on a name? --

7008: 6318: 6201: 6058: 5903: 5783: 5754: 5607: 5133: 4985: 4804: 4233: 3915: 3438: 3353: 3304: 3170: 2958: 2635:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Jauch (disambituation)

2619: 2615: 2592: 2429: 2418: 2376: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2256: 2252: 2240: 2236: 2228: 2224: 1774: 1525: 1385: 1341: 1133: 1050: 1005: 975: 962: 883: 653: 636: 8187:

_G15)" title="Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 73": -->

5911:

information (although it's now broken with the database changes). Regards

5221:

going on for CA articles. While of course most of the 30,000+ articles in

4236:

shouldn’t be kept simply because someone made a poorly planned out prod.--

2639:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Heitai (disamguation)

2438:

Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern

8914: 8877: 7785: 7716: 7692: 7550: 7538: 7498: 7455: 7400: 7371: 7356: 7297: 7265: 7251: 7233: 7095: 7066: 6974: 6780: 6754: 6670: 6597: 6578: 6524: 6108: 5974: 5907: 5328: 5234: 5230: 3613: 3516: 3262: 2772: 2675:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Paza (disambiuation)

2671:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Kase (disambigation)

2603:. Such redirects should never be linked, and they clutter the searchbox. 2396: 2298: 2284: 2121: 1681: 1647: 1169: 2192:). If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in 2022:, the present article version is significantly different the version of 8272: 8234: 8056: 8041: 7874: 7822: 7761: 7679: 7582: 6867: 6820: 6621: 6604: 6574: 6558: 6373: 6340: 6170: 6113: 6041: 5936: 5912: 5644: 5510: 5491: 5433: 5298: 5271: 5259:

have far, far more. There are over 3,000 counties in the United States.

5198: 5150: 5042: 5001: 4927: 4832: 4749: 4722: 4699: 4598: 4331: 4195: 4158: 4106: 3890: 3096: 2964: 1933: 1323: 1264: 1101: 952:(and it's subcategories) to look at every page that has not recieved a 366: 330: 295: 260: 214: 166: 5931:

lists the last 100 moves to draft (change LIMIT to get more or less),

4123:

editor to contest the request in good faith by removing the tag. PROD

2705:

R5. Redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers

2436:" statement is intimidating enough especially for uploaders, and the " 8191: 7990: 7554: 5476: 5285: 4686:

is an example of an article that would be covered by this criterion.

2553: 1793:

Proposed new criterion R5: Redirects with incorrect temporal keywords

258:

round of deletion, refund, undeletion is just unnecessary busywork. —

8910:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Class Fight (The Loud House)

8147:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bush League Fantasy Football

7899:

is supposed to be straightforward and clear, why do we still have a

5639:

be used after a set of article creations or moves occur but doesn't

5585:

I think the bullet would be helpful, given that my attempted G14 of

5390:

I don't want to drown the page with too many examples just yet, but

3840:, what "errors in a disambiguator" are, in your opinion, covered by 8545: 8520: 8395: 7622: 6802: 6232: 5789:

we don't even run the risk of "underhanded" actions, especially as

4846: 4051:

attempt eligible for speedy deletion? For example, the articles on

3564: 3238: 3219: 2120:(and some less obvious examples) link to the subtopic of a remake. 1743: 834: 725: 504: 483: 478:

likely refers to time interval between CSD tagging and deletion of

5237:. Despite users raising the issue of GNIS errors in California at 4672:

Area code, zip code, county name, state name, and/or country name.

4582:

Area code, zip code, county name, state name, and/or country name.

2647:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 30#Disambiguatio

2643:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 30#Dismbiguation

185:

is a serious discouragement to people we ought to be encouraging.

5223:

Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state

4615:"populated place" locales with no history of substantive content. 1283:

Oh ok,I was just unaware of that. It should have been more clear

945:(Specifically NOTWEBHOST) and the purpose of the Draft Namespace. 254: 4638:

The article either (a) cites no sources, or (b) cites only GNIS.

2162:

The fifth paragraph of the introduction to CSD currently reads:

8543:, yes, I agree - but it still shouldn't be a policy-free zone. 7497:

Accounts cannot be deleted; you may just abandon your account.

6954:

A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form of vandalism

4646:

The article does not contain, and has no revisions containing,

4556:

The article does not contain, and has no revisions containing,

602:

Ah I see. I thought you were unhappy with how I had dealt with

8143:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Polvina and the Errors

7643:

defines web content in a way which includes web applications (

5967: 3146:

without the "(Redirected from Skye (Disambiguation))" anyway.

1814:

Examples of redirects that would meet this criterion include:

1710:

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redundant templates

1479:"Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, i.e., 2345:

the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it

2026:

deleted in 2018 so the G4 nomination was correctly declined.

1160:, and appropriate wording that reflects that could be added. 1116:, was performing a "disambiguation-like" function. As editor 7869:

requirement of PROXYING as well. The whole point of G5 (and

5635:

someone working on a disambiguation page in draftspace that

2580:

Note that there is a different live proposal to this one at

1559:

Templates that are not being employed in any useful fashion

1468:, but the change to the policy text had the side effect of 7054:

Oh, good catch. The terminology is just incorrect. We have

5037:

A CSD wouldn't be feasible here, but I think adopting the "

4631: 4612: 4550: 4531: 4499: 1398:

This apparent discrepancy caused some disagreement over at

5225:

are legitimate communities, it remains disturbing how the

2633:

to waste multiple editors' time on them. Examples include

2167:

The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag

1528:

as follows, in order to be consistent with the wording of

6484:

File talk:1 Ranger Battalion Shoulder Sleeve Insignia.svg

5471:

the material where appropriate. Or a redirect/merge to a

3815:

Considering how frequently RFD participants misinterpret

3706:

Perhaps R3 or G6 could simply be expanded to cover this?

2831:

I'm still thinking about the main thrust of the proposal.

1190:

Please leave a one- or two-line rationale following your

6753:, which I think is a good idea. I support the change. -- 6372:

IAR and 10,000+ pages does not really mix imho. Regards

5906:

says, by providing a script to make draftifying easier,

5852:

more than six months in mainspace, though, I'm not sure

5270:

that this is an unfair shifting of the burden of proof.

5219:

Knowledge:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force

4495:

Proposal: new criterion for mass-created GNIS permastubs

2686:

Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion#Obsolete criteria

1470:

making it OK to speedy delete templates which are in use

1428:. I can't find out when it was removed from the policy. 7560:

As such, I would like to propose a minor change to A7:

5107:

to start sorting through these stubs. All are welcome.

3844:

and what errors are the result of misinterpretation? –

2810:

creating a new criterion or expanding either R3 or G6.

2606:

As matters stand, such redirects tend to get listed at

1298:

A hypothetical example of a redirect of this type that

656:. I'm not sure if you're aware but many of us who work 8323:

User:Jagannatharao Jonnalagadda/sandbox/My Name of God

5399:

Knowledge articles must not contain original research.

2434:

do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded

1735:

Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion/Archive 1

6211:

I don't know how significant an issue that would be?

6132:

in that instance. The article's not being deleted so

6128:

Personally, I'd rather draftify the article than use

5745:

edge case looking for rules to be codified (see also

2040:

Thanks, I have seen it now. So it went as I hoped. --

8188:

Extending A11 to draftspace has been proposed before

7021:

deletion. And clearly, based on the template placed

4831:

I've edited my proposal to include this limitation.

4566:

refers to any prose content excluding the following:

2524:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

1631:

I'd prefer davidwr's original T3 wording, and think

1524:

Does anyone object to me to changing the wording of

8151:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alannah Yip

4719:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bryants, California

3391:, as I feel that this fits in with other CDS's the 2728:I am notifying the existence of this discussion to 2534:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2279:button. Then we may wish to review which CSD have 1472:

which doesn't seem to have been properly addressed.

7891:Backlog of local copies tagged for deletion per F8 5795:" is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion" 4762:For what it's worth I removed the population from 1945:This proposal has been withdrawn by the initiator. 556:You hadn't edited that draft since October 2018‎, 2158:Contesting deletion: proposed changes to the text 6948:Hoaxes are a type of vandalism, as described at 2297:Something like that was proposed for G6, but as 1737:keeps appearing in the speedy deletion category 1483:, substantial duplications of another template, 6095:I'm saying they should be treated according to 5405:here; it goes on to say a few sentences later, 4682:I think this is pretty narrow and cut-and-dry. 4619:An article may be deleted under this criterion 4538:An article may be deleted under this criterion 6472:also note that not all the pages contain only 6028:lacks any such guidance despite the fact that 5473:list of unincorporated communities in New York 4740:Incorporated communities and CDPs are excluded 4656:refers to any content excluding the following: 2093:A new criterion for just that was proposed in 1446:which cites a talkpage discussion, presumably 7545:and they pointed out that strictly speaking, 5321:for the purposes of whether something passes 2537:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8426:borderline G1 patent nonsense), the second ( 4743:Change "any prose content" to "any content". 1466:not be deleted just because they are orphans 443:once it has been tagged or deleted under G13 5458:for this proposal and it comes down to the 5356:"Doing research" is not "original research" 5144:has a link the the cleanup page that has a 4419:Yes, that is the distinction I'm saying -- 2200:I see two issues with the current wording: 1499:"not being employed in any useful fashion". 18:Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion 7755:to explicitly include browser games had a 6255:Category:File-Class United States articles 4909:and there's a decent external writeup for 4518:The following discussion has been closed. 3209:supported the deletion of a redircet with 2446:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 5 1925:You are invited to join the discussion at 1495:a hardcoded instance of another template, 493:Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions 5509:more appropriate. Not sure where though. 2734:Knowledge:Disambiguation pages with links 851:I wish that we could've had agreement on 8728:for thinking the very large/long game. 7232:to cut-and-paste move documentation? -- 5847:Part of that has to do with the fact a 5164:it obvious to anyone who wants to vote 4690:is an example of an article that would 4663:Name(s) and former name(s) of the place 4573:Name(s) and former name(s) of the place 3726:Also, perhaps this should be listed at 2426:Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale 2415:Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale 1739:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 1475:Perhaps the key thing is that the text 14: 8190:with no consensus to change anything. 6971:Knowledge:Vandalism#Types of vandalism 3510:, which is currently being debated at 1797:Oftentimes there are bulk RfD's from " 1112:because the current target article, a 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 8351:speedily rather than with consensus? 7198:I'll throw out a ping to Amorymeltzer 6250:Blank talk pages for files on Commons 5891:reason of being "undersourced" (e.g. 4626:of the following conditions are met: 4545:of the following conditions are met: 3787:I've gone ahead and added it myself. 2827:Very strong oppose expanding R3 or G6 2614:criterion which clearly covers them. 2460:; edited, 09:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 2070:that now redirects to something like 1845:2022 Colombian parliamentary election 1841:2018 Colombian parliamentary election 1837:Next Colombian parliamentary election 1567:duplications of another template, or 1543:duplications of another template, or 7058:-and-paste copyright violations and 6498:Yes what would be best would be for 5971:if you have the script installed) - 5674:G13 and articles moved to draftspace 5071:it's difficult to tell what sort of 4132:was right to decline the first one ( 2929:I think that is pretty unambiguous. 2442:where the covers were also discussed 480:Draft:Wardill Motorcycle Company Ltd 253:to make stale drafts only appear in 117:Draft:Wardill Motorcycle Company Ltd 25: 8165:(some time ago I did the former at 8136:Extend A11 and U5 to drafts and AfC 6743:I see that it seems to borrow from 6286:talk pages for files that exist on 4262:I agree with the comments above by 2343:For most speedy deletion criteria, 2113:The Invisible Woman (upcoming film) 23: 8641:"abuse of Knowledge" aspect of U5. 6503:if a list is already generated. — 6315:Template:WikiProject United States 6291:, except if the talk page is blank 5392:here's a particularly odious batch 4043:Speedy deletion and deproded pages 3500:So that would include titles like 2742:Knowledge:Redirects for discussion 24: 8964: 8562:discussions on this exact topic. 8428:Draft:Theory of maintenance break 8372:Draft:Theory of maintenance break 8315:contemplating life's vicissitudes 4669:Distances from other named places 4579:Distances from other named places 3771:Ah, I meant the template itself. 3471:typos or misnomers which contain 3261:lives on. R5 would kill it off. 1442:OK, it was removed six years ago 8755:The Blade of the Northern Lights 8724:The Blade of the Northern Lights 8481:The Blade of the Northern Lights 8450:The Blade of the Northern Lights 8421:The Blade of the Northern Lights 8376:The Blade of the Northern Lights 8336:The Blade of the Northern Lights 8252:The Blade of the Northern Lights 8171:The Blade of the Northern Lights 6707:, turning it from a redirect to 6206:one possibly quick way to catch 4034:The discussion above is closed. 3828:as a couple recent examples.) - 3747: 3181:errors. It's worth to note that 1920: 1098:the Shabbat (disambiguation) RfD 950:Category:AfC submissions by date 29: 8059:, Thanks for the explantation! 6034:Draft:Midnight Lace (1981 film) 5587:Draft:Shaweesh (disambiguation) 5105:User:SportingFlyer/GNIS Cleanup 4285:I don't think a contested PROD 3894: 3886: 3878: 3259:Tsar Alexander (disambaguation) 2876:Disambiguation pages with links 2118:The Invisible Woman (1940 film) 2110:but beware of false positives: 1128:purpose of redirects ending in 1096:, the most recent of which was 1085:Proposal: Ambiguous wording of 8908:The drafts in question are at 8268:other underused criteria exist 6950:Knowledge:Do_not_create_hoaxes 6899:requested at this edit request 6542:Both are bad-faith creations. 2738:Knowledge:WikiProject Redirect 2066:there are requests to discuss 1963:Inappropriate speedy deletions 1847:does not have an article yet.) 502:most important consideration. 13: 1: 7537:I just had a discussion with 7248:Template:Db-copypaste/sandbox 4047:Are articles that survived a 1702:22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 1668:22:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 1627:00:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1608:That seems reasonable to me. 1604:01:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 1426:old version of the CSD policy 1312:16:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 1293:22:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1278:22:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1257:05:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1230:15:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 1213:09:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 1079:23:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 1059:18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC) 1044:21:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC) 1014:00:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 992:00:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 971:23:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 903:00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC) 697:I'd definitely support this. 8837:deleted at the relevant XfD 7901:huge backlog of local copies 7029:ambiguity) or redirected to 6406:A quick look at these (e.g. 5142:Knowledge:WikiProject Nevada 3473:parenthetical disambiguation 2882:harmful: any such link is a 2444:. The deletion was reviewed 2349:Contest this speedy deletion 2171:Contest this speedy deletion 2009:you do not reach agreement). 1589:15:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 1512:11:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1460:10:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1438:10:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1419:08:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 844:23:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 827:21:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 793:17:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 778:15:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 763:03:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 735:01:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 716:20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 693:19:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 675:15:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 652:That has happened to me too 644:19:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 616:15:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 591:15:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 570:15:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 548:19:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 528:19:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 487:11:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 468:08:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 437:04:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 414:23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 380:22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 359:18:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 344:06:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 324:23:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 309:22:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 288:22:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 274:22:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 245:21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 225:21:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 209:21:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 195:21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 177:20:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 159:20:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 7: 6835:Stop pinging me, please. I 5368:place (historical" in GNIS 3348:Draft:Anthonyrenaealvarezjr 3142:box it would take you onto 1110:G14 speedy deletion request 538:Draft:Robert George Burrell 10: 8969: 5751:an alternative to deletion 5460:trivial other alternatives 5103:I've created a project at 4487:15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 4470:09:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 4456:21:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC) 4413:14:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4399:01:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4385:22:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4370:14:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4342:10:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4318:21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4279:21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC) 4246:21:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4226:09:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4206:07:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4189:07:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4169:06:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4115:04:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4098:04:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 4084:23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4069:23:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4025:08:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 3994:01:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 3975:00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 3961:00:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 3938:00:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 3923:21:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3867:20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3849:21:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3833:20:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3799:20:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3783:20:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3765:20:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3742:20:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3718:20:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3688:02:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 3658:20:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3637:13:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 3622:11:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 3604:10:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 3589:20:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3576:18:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3551:18:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3525:11:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3508:North by Northwest (moive) 3496:02:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3460:23:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 3080:19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 3066:19:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 3039:17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 3024:02:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 2981:23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2941:21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2911:22:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2896:21:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2863:20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2842:20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2822:20:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2781:20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2754:19:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2575:08:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 2509:23:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 2485:15:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 2458:09:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 2405:19:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 2390:19:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 2330:19:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 2310:19:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 2293:12:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 2269:23:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 2152:00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 2130:11:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 2102:11:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 2088:11:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 1905:01:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1876:07:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 1785:13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 1765:06:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 1723:11:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 1373:19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1359:17:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1332:16:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 8953:02:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC) 8939:ree social media exposure 8122:15:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC) 8107:04:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) 8088:21:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC) 8069:10:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 8052:10:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 8024:09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 7999:15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 7885:12:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 7863:11:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 7835:10:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 7521:07:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 7176:I'll throw out a ping to 6922:No, or at least not yet. 6477:WikiProject United States 6262:WikiProject United States 4007:be interpreted strictly, 3442:17:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 3424:10:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 3410:09:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 3382:11:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 3361:07:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 3330:02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 3312:17:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 3285:11:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 3271:12:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 3253:11:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 3228:10:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 3198:20:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 3162:17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 3105:12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2998:11:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2801:17:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2050:09:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 2036:08:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 2014:Knowledge:Deletion review 1997:05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 1981:04:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 1957:14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 1940:18:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 1594:I support that proposal. 8924:16:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 8904:16:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 8887:16:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 8851:16:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 8829:10:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 8803:10:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 8781:08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 8738:14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 8712:22:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 8691:22:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 8674:02:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 7981:05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 7964:01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 7949:00:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 7935:00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 7913:09:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC) 7814:12:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 7794:02:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 7777:14:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 7541:about the A7 tagging of 7507:23:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC) 7492:23:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC) 7464:14:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 7437:00:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 7409:14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 7387:10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 7365:00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 7350:11:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC) 7335:10:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC) 7320:10:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC) 7306:00:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC) 7292:21:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 7274:21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 7260:21:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 7242:20:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 7223:00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 7190:19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC) 7172:17:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC) 7158:17:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC) 7144:17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 7126:15:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 7114:Creative Commons licence 7104:14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 7089:18:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 7075:15:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 7049:14:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 6983:01:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC) 6966:15:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 6937:10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 6911:06:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC) 6883:00:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 6849:09:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6831:08:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6814:07:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6793:05:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6763:01:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC) 6739:09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC) 6615:06:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6591:06:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6569:05:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6552:05:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6537:05:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6510:14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 6494:16:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 6465:15:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 6451:14:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 6417:13:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 6402:15:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 6384:05:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 6368:19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 6351:18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 6322:18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 6302:17:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 6244:07:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6221:22:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 6181:10:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 6156:02:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 6124:07:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6091:07:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6062:07:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6052:06:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6012:06:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 5983:09:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 5947:06:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 5923:06:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 5876:15:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 5839:14:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 5825:12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 5777:11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 5763:11:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 5718:11:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 5702:09:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 5660:16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 5630:15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 5615:15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 5599:14:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 4764:Arroyo Vista, California 4715:Arroyo Vista, California 4666:Coordinates of the place 4576:Coordinates of the place 4521:Please do not modify it. 4360:be reviewing it anyway. 4036:Please do not modify it. 3648:in the extended version 2730:Knowledge:Disambiguation 2531:Please do not modify it. 2424:I have wondered whether 2204:The following sentence: 2018:In the specific case of 114:in any way appropriate? 103:Deletion time for a G13? 8655:23:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8609:12:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8572:10:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8557:10:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8536:08:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8506:10:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8491:10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8475:09:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8460:08:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8440:08:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8407:08:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8386:08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 8361:10:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 8346:09:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 8304:22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 8283:15:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 8262:09:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 8245:08:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 8216:08:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 8200:08:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 8181:08:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 7733:15:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 7703:12:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 7658:11:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 7629:11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 7611:11:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 7593:10:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5573:14:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 5558:09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 5540:05:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 5519:23:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5500:22:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5485:22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5442:01:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5363:00:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5351:00:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5315:00:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5294:22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5280:22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5247:22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5207:15:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5188:04:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5159:04:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5127:16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 5095:16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 5066:16:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 5051:15:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 5030:13:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 5012:07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 4993:06:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 4974:03:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 4938:07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 4921:02:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 4885:22:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4857:22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4841:22:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4827:21:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4812:12:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4795:09:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4774:12:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4758:08:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4733:07:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4708:07:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4640:22:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4607:12:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 4431:21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 4300:11:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC) 3883:London (disambiguation) 3610:I know it when I see it 2759:Support/Oppose (new R5) 1832:Jumanji: The Next Level 800:I’m still hearing that 8005:Whats the point of G5? 7985:Are the instructions ( 7577: 7543:Symbiose (web desktop) 7340:an unhelpful redlink. 6408:File talk:2-5crest.gif 6295: 5801:be deleted under G13. 5303:Knowledge:Five pillars 3877:is something like the 3350:(all reasonable IMO). 2381: 2198: 1812: 1092:In a number of recent 914:Since you're going to 660:now use the excellent 7564: 6992:Template:db-copypaste 6277: 6270:requested an adminbot 3981:last RfC we had on it 3826:Tommy Walker(The Who) 3144:Skye (disambiguation) 3139:Skye (Disambiguation) 2341: 2164: 1828:Untitled Jumanji film 1819:Joker (upcoming film) 1807: 1400:Template:Why We Fight 42:of past discussions. 8368:Draft:CL DoCuMeNtArY 6036:is just a remake of 5968:Special:Draftify log 4611:A12/X3: articles on 4049:WP:Proposed deletion 3822:Duck and Cover (film 3465:Support in principle 3344:Draft:Rumen Damyanov 3340:Draft:Hans art group 3169:in favour of making 2610:because there is no 8167:Draft:Toastaricious 7974:User:Magog the Ogre 7134:anything specific. 6712:db-vandalism-notice 6686:assumes bad faith, 5462:available, such as 5264:User:Carlossuarez46 5197:could be extended. 4907:User:Dlthewave/GNIS 4650:, as defined below. 4560:, as defined below. 4154:Corriere della Sera 4053:Camilla Di Giuseppe 2767:but I would remove 2526:request for comment 2068:Foo (upcoming film) 1569:hardcoded instances 1545:hardcoded instances 1539:Templates that are 1155:disambiguation name 7841:G5 and WP:PROXYING 7581:Thoughts? Regards 7007:is being used for 6666:. Similarly, with 5933:quarry:query/44979 5929:quarry:query/44978 5454:I think I have an 5401:It only refers to 5147:Notability unclear 4873:Very strong oppose 4654:Meaningful content 4648:meaningful content 4564:Meaningful content 4558:meaningful content 4513:Original proposal 2697:Ø (Disambiguation) 2691:O (Disambiguation) 2346: 2168: 2095:this section above 8949:DESiegel Contribs 8555: 8417: 8405: 8223:Draft:Alannah Yip 7810:DESiegel Contribs 7700: 7435: 7399:. Just a typo. -- 7221: 6812: 6334: 6288:Wikimedia Commons 6242: 5963:Draftity log tool 5823: 5793:currently states 5728: 5700: 5136:and/or is just a 4871: 4593: 4592: 4530:A12: articles on 4483:DESiegel Contribs 4452:DESiegel Contribs 4275:DESiegel Contribs 3918:straight away. – 3694:Comments (new R5) 3686: 3574: 3503:Mercury (plannit) 3215:OED enty for Tsar 3064: 3022: 2979: 2948:as the author of 2344: 2166: 2106:There seem to be 1823:Joker (2019 film) 1733:For some reason, 1563:which are either 1535:Current wording: 1357: 1356: 1181: 1168:comment added by 1077: 935:put up or shut up 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 8960: 8824: 8818: 8813: 8791: 8776: 8770: 8765: 8758: 8751: 8727: 8604: 8549: 8524: 8487: 8456: 8424: 8411: 8399: 8382: 8342: 8280: 8275: 8258: 8242: 8237: 8211: 8177: 8049: 8044: 8035: 7924: 7882: 7877: 7774: 7696: 7653: 7590: 7585: 7571:web applications 7547:web applications 7531:Web applications 7419: 7418: 7375: 7205: 7204: 7063:-and-paste moves 7038: 7032: 7020: 7014: 7006: 7000: 6921: 6896: 6890: 6880: 6828: 6823: 6806: 6752: 6746: 6734: 6728: 6723: 6716: 6710: 6706: 6700: 6695: 6689: 6685: 6679: 6675: 6669: 6665: 6659: 6655: 6649: 6645: 6639: 6635: 6629: 6625: 6612: 6607: 6601: 6566: 6561: 6507: 6482:. For example, 6481: 6475: 6425:I would file an 6414: 6381: 6376: 6348: 6343: 6328: 6266: 6260: 6236: 6205: 6178: 6173: 6153: 6145: 6121: 6116: 6101:Draft:Kanli Kula 6088: 6080: 6049: 6044: 6016:The problem is, 6009: 6001: 5970: 5944: 5939: 5920: 5915: 5889:WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM 5886: 5873: 5865: 5820: 5814: 5809: 5806: 5796: 5787: 5735: 5722: 5697: 5691: 5686: 5683: 5657: 5610: 5584: 5422:El Dorado County 5348: 5340: 5185: 5177: 5124: 5116: 5092: 5084: 5048: 5009: 5004: 4988: 4971: 4963: 4935: 4930: 4865: 4847:Hometown Locator 4807: 4730: 4725: 4596:Updated proposal 4523: 4510: 4509: 4355: 4349: 4339: 4334: 4329: 4218: 4215: 4203: 4198: 4181: 4178: 4166: 4161: 4139: 4112: 4057:Stefania Orlando 3896: 3888: 3880: 3879:(disambiguation) 3864: 3859: 3796: 3791: 3780: 3775: 3755: 3751: 3750: 3739: 3734: 3715: 3710: 3670: 3669: 3608:True. Although 3568: 3547: 3542: 3537: 3492: 3487: 3482: 3408: 3371: 3356: 3307: 3242: 3207:User:Narky Blert 3193: 3190: 3158: 3151: 3122:Mercury (planet) 3102: 3048: 3047: 3006: 3005: 2975: 2969: 2962: 2939: 2819: 2814: 2797: 2790: 2693: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2556: 2533: 2506: 2505: 2502: 2481: 2476: 2471: 2215: 2209: 2187: 2181: 2140: 2115: 2020:Canadian (canoe) 2007: 1938: 1924: 1923: 1872: 1867: 1751: 1699: 1691: 1665: 1657: 1640: 1634: 1617: 1615: 1346: 1345: 1163: 1159: 1153: 1149: 1143: 1130:(disambiguation) 1100:, administrator 1076: 1002: 927: 923:AfC postpone G13 921: 913: 881: 875: 871: 865: 860: 854: 809: 803: 706: 704: 639: 601: 536:. The page is 427: 425: 409: 408: 405: 402: 222: 217: 183:ask for a refund 174: 169: 146: 145: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 8968: 8967: 8963: 8962: 8961: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8950: 8934:strongly oppose 8822: 8816: 8811: 8788:Passengerpigeon 8785: 8774: 8768: 8763: 8752: 8745: 8721: 8704:UnitedStatesian 8666:Graeme Bartlett 8602: 8518: 8485: 8454: 8418: 8380: 8340: 8278: 8273: 8256: 8240: 8235: 8209: 8175: 8138: 8047: 8042: 8029: 8007: 7954:uncontestable. 7918: 7893: 7880: 7875: 7843: 7811: 7762: 7757:mixed reception 7746:this discussion 7651: 7588: 7583: 7574: 7535: 7484:The Great Mesmo 7480: 7478:The Great Mesmo 7416: 7391:Sorry, I meant 7369: 7202: 7162:I agree. Best, 7036: 7030: 7018: 7012: 7004: 6998: 6995: 6924:Passengerpigeon 6915: 6894: 6888: 6868: 6826: 6821: 6789: 6750: 6744: 6732: 6726: 6721: 6714: 6708: 6704: 6698: 6693: 6687: 6683: 6677: 6673: 6667: 6663: 6657: 6653: 6647: 6643: 6637: 6633: 6627: 6619: 6610: 6605: 6595: 6587: 6564: 6559: 6533: 6520: 6505: 6479: 6473: 6412: 6379: 6374: 6346: 6341: 6292: 6264: 6258: 6252: 6199: 6176: 6171: 6149: 6141: 6119: 6114: 6084: 6076: 6047: 6042: 6005: 5997: 5966: 5942: 5937: 5927:Fixed the SQL: 5918: 5913: 5880: 5869: 5861: 5818: 5812: 5804: 5794: 5781: 5729: 5695: 5689: 5681: 5676: 5645: 5608: 5591:UnitedStatesian 5578: 5532:UnitedStatesian 5527: 5344: 5336: 5181: 5173: 5166:procedural keep 5120: 5112: 5088: 5080: 5043: 5007: 5002: 4986: 4967: 4959: 4933: 4928: 4805: 4728: 4723: 4680: 4639: 4519: 4497: 4484: 4453: 4353: 4347: 4337: 4332: 4323: 4308: 4276: 4223: 4216: 4213: 4201: 4196: 4186: 4179: 4176: 4164: 4159: 4133: 4110: 4045: 4040: 4039: 3862: 3857: 3794: 3789: 3778: 3773: 3748: 3746: 3737: 3732: 3713: 3708: 3696: 3667: 3545: 3540: 3535: 3514: 3505: 3490: 3485: 3480: 3400: 3365: 3354: 3305: 3236: 3191: 3188: 3156: 3149: 3130:Cleveland, Ohio 3100: 3045: 3003: 2978: 2973: 2965: 2930: 2817: 2812: 2795: 2788: 2769:at the basename 2761: 2689: 2577: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2554: 2552: 2529: 2519: 2503: 2500: 2499: 2479: 2474: 2469: 2422: 2353:discussion page 2350: 2301:pointed out in 2213: 2207: 2185: 2179: 2175:discussion page 2172: 2160: 2134: 2111: 2108:dozens of cases 2072:Foo (2020 film) 2060: 2001: 1965: 1930: 1921: 1918: 1870: 1865: 1795: 1742: 1731: 1695: 1687: 1661: 1653: 1638: 1632: 1613: 1612: 1383: 1381:T3 discrepancy? 1320: 1318:Merge A7 and A9 1238: 1187: 1157: 1151: 1147: 1141: 1094:RfD discussions 1090: 996: 925: 919: 907: 888:User:HasteurBot 879: 877:promising draft 873: 869: 867:promising draft 863: 858: 856:promising draft 852: 810:is a good idea. 807: 805:promising draft 801: 702: 701: 637: 595: 423: 422: 406: 403: 400: 399: 220: 215: 172: 167: 119: 115: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 8966: 8956: 8955: 8948: 8930: 8929: 8928: 8927: 8926: 8859: 8858: 8857: 8856: 8855: 8854: 8853: 8740: 8714: 8693: 8676: 8658: 8657: 8642: 8638: 8634: 8629: 8628: 8612: 8611: 8596:WP:NOT#WEBHOST 8587: 8586: 8585: 8584: 8583: 8582: 8581: 8580: 8579: 8578: 8577: 8576: 8575: 8574: 8516: 8515: 8514: 8513: 8512: 8511: 8510: 8509: 8508: 8388: 8307: 8306: 8290: 8289: 8288: 8287: 8286: 8285: 8218: 8203: 8202: 8137: 8134: 8133: 8132: 8131: 8130: 8129: 8128: 8127: 8126: 8125: 8124: 8006: 8003: 8002: 8001: 7983: 7970: 7969: 7968: 7967: 7966: 7892: 7889: 7888: 7887: 7842: 7839: 7838: 7837: 7816: 7809: 7796: 7779: 7735: 7706: 7661: 7660: 7632: 7631: 7614: 7613: 7579: 7578: 7568: 7534: 7528: 7526: 7524: 7523: 7509: 7479: 7476: 7475: 7474: 7473: 7472: 7471: 7470: 7469: 7468: 7467: 7466: 7451: 7450: 7449: 7448: 7447: 7446: 7445: 7444: 7443: 7442: 7441: 7440: 7439: 7413: 7412: 7411: 7280: 7262: 7244: 7229: 7228: 7227: 7226: 7225: 7110: 7109: 7108: 7107: 7106: 7079:Why don't we? 6994: 6989: 6988: 6987: 6986: 6985: 6943: 6942: 6941: 6940: 6939: 6892:Db-hoax-notice 6855: 6854: 6853: 6852: 6851: 6833: 6795: 6787: 6773: 6772: 6771: 6770: 6769: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6765: 6702:db-hoax-notice 6585: 6531: 6519: 6516: 6515: 6514: 6513: 6512: 6468: 6467: 6453: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6419: 6404: 6390:WP:IARUNCOMMON 6386: 6355: 6354: 6325: 6324: 6294: 6293: 6290: 6284: 6251: 6248: 6247: 6246: 6225: 6224: 6223: 6196: 6195: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6187: 6186: 6185: 6184: 6183: 6064: 5988: 5987: 5986: 5985: 5965:(available at 5954: 5953: 5952: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5842: 5841: 5836:Uanfala (talk) 5830: 5829: 5828: 5827: 5779: 5720: 5675: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5662: 5560: 5547: 5526: 5523: 5522: 5521: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5475:or similar. -- 5451: 5450: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5429: 5418: 5395: 5381: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5365: 5353: 5307:Carlossuarez46 5296: 5260: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5032: 5014: 4995: 4976: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4902: 4901: 4888: 4887: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4829: 4798: 4797: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4741: 4698:Any thoughts? 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4673: 4670: 4667: 4664: 4658: 4657: 4651: 4644: 4641: 4637: 4635: 4621:if and only if 4594: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4583: 4580: 4577: 4574: 4568: 4567: 4561: 4554: 4540:if and only if 4525: 4524: 4515: 4514: 4496: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4482: 4458: 4451: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4425:Keith D. Tyler 4417: 4416: 4415: 4312:Keith D. Tyler 4307: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4282: 4281: 4274: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4221: 4184: 4171: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4044: 4041: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 3997: 3996: 3977: 3925: 3920:Uanfala (talk) 3912: 3870: 3869: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3846:Uanfala (talk) 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3721: 3720: 3695: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3660: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3624: 3586:Uanfala (talk) 3578: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3506: 3501: 3462: 3444: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3363: 3314: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3231: 3230: 3200: 3176: 3164: 3126:Cleveland Ohio 3118:Mercury planet 3107: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 2983: 2971: 2943: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2872:Comment by nom 2866: 2865: 2844: 2824: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2760: 2757: 2718: 2717: 2708: 2707: 2578: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2520: 2518: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2495:WP:COMMONSENSE 2421: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2387:Uanfala (talk) 2382: 2338: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2307:Uanfala (talk) 2303:the discussion 2272: 2271: 2266:Uanfala (talk) 2249:less obviously 2232: 2159: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2132: 2104: 2099:Uanfala (talk) 2059: 2058:Upcoming films 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2024:Canadian canoe 2017: 2010: 1999: 1964: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1917: 1913:Discussion at 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1892: 1888: 1849: 1848: 1834: 1825: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1730: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1671: 1670: 1629: 1606: 1577: 1576: 1553: 1552: 1530:Template:Db-t3 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1500: 1497:IN ADDITION TO 1489: 1473: 1393:Template:Db-t3 1382: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1338: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1281: 1280: 1259: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1215: 1186: 1183: 1145:disambiguation 1089: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 979: 946: 891: 849: 811: 798: 780: 751: 743: 742: 737: 720: 719: 718: 680: 679: 678: 677: 647: 646: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 573: 572: 551: 550: 530: 514: 513: 498: 497: 489: 471: 470: 456: 451: 450: 439: 416: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 251:Template:Db-c1 247: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 211: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 8965: 8954: 8951: 8946: 8944: 8940: 8935: 8931: 8925: 8921: 8917: 8916: 8911: 8907: 8906: 8905: 8901: 8897: 8893: 8890: 8889: 8888: 8884: 8880: 8879: 8874: 8870: 8865: 8860: 8852: 8848: 8844: 8840: 8836: 8832: 8831: 8830: 8827: 8825: 8819: 8814: 8806: 8805: 8804: 8800: 8796: 8789: 8784: 8783: 8782: 8779: 8777: 8771: 8766: 8756: 8749: 8744: 8741: 8739: 8735: 8731: 8725: 8718: 8715: 8713: 8709: 8705: 8701: 8697: 8694: 8692: 8688: 8684: 8680: 8677: 8675: 8671: 8667: 8663: 8660: 8659: 8656: 8652: 8648: 8643: 8639: 8635: 8631: 8630: 8625: 8621: 8617: 8614: 8613: 8610: 8607: 8606: 8605: 8597: 8593: 8589: 8588: 8573: 8569: 8565: 8560: 8559: 8558: 8553: 8548: 8547: 8542: 8539: 8538: 8537: 8533: 8529: 8522: 8517: 8507: 8503: 8499: 8494: 8493: 8492: 8488: 8482: 8478: 8477: 8476: 8472: 8468: 8463: 8462: 8461: 8457: 8451: 8447: 8443: 8442: 8441: 8437: 8433: 8429: 8422: 8415: 8414:edit conflict 8410: 8409: 8408: 8403: 8398: 8397: 8392: 8389: 8387: 8383: 8377: 8373: 8369: 8364: 8363: 8362: 8358: 8354: 8349: 8348: 8347: 8343: 8337: 8332: 8328: 8324: 8320: 8316: 8311: 8310: 8309: 8308: 8305: 8301: 8297: 8292: 8291: 8284: 8281: 8276: 8269: 8266:Arguing that 8265: 8264: 8263: 8259: 8253: 8248: 8247: 8246: 8243: 8238: 8232: 8230: 8228: 8224: 8219: 8217: 8214: 8212: 8205: 8204: 8201: 8197: 8193: 8189: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8182: 8178: 8172: 8168: 8164: 8163:WP:NOTWEBHOST 8160: 8154: 8152: 8148: 8144: 8123: 8120: 8117: 8113: 8110: 8109: 8108: 8104: 8100: 8096: 8091: 8090: 8089: 8086: 8083: 8079: 8075: 8072: 8071: 8070: 8066: 8062: 8058: 8055: 8054: 8053: 8050: 8045: 8038: 8033: 8028: 8027: 8026: 8025: 8021: 8017: 8013: 8000: 7996: 7992: 7988: 7984: 7982: 7979: 7975: 7972:It's because 7971: 7965: 7961: 7957: 7952: 7951: 7950: 7946: 7942: 7938: 7937: 7936: 7932: 7928: 7922: 7917: 7916: 7915: 7914: 7910: 7906: 7902: 7898: 7886: 7883: 7878: 7872: 7867: 7866: 7865: 7864: 7860: 7856: 7851: 7847: 7836: 7832: 7828: 7824: 7820: 7817: 7815: 7812: 7807: 7805: 7800: 7797: 7795: 7791: 7787: 7783: 7780: 7778: 7775: 7773: 7769: 7765: 7758: 7754: 7751: 7747: 7743: 7739: 7736: 7734: 7730: 7726: 7722: 7718: 7714: 7710: 7707: 7705: 7704: 7699: 7694: 7690: 7685: 7681: 7675: 7670: 7666: 7663: 7662: 7659: 7656: 7655: 7654: 7646: 7642: 7637: 7634: 7633: 7630: 7627: 7624: 7619: 7616: 7615: 7612: 7608: 7604: 7600: 7597: 7596: 7595: 7594: 7591: 7586: 7576: 7572: 7563: 7562: 7561: 7558: 7556: 7552: 7548: 7544: 7540: 7532: 7527: 7522: 7518: 7514: 7510: 7508: 7504: 7500: 7496: 7495: 7494: 7493: 7489: 7485: 7465: 7461: 7457: 7452: 7438: 7434: 7432: 7428: 7424: 7414: 7410: 7406: 7402: 7398: 7396: 7390: 7389: 7388: 7384: 7380: 7373: 7368: 7367: 7366: 7362: 7358: 7353: 7352: 7351: 7347: 7343: 7338: 7337: 7336: 7332: 7328: 7327:Jo-Jo Eumerus 7323: 7322: 7321: 7317: 7313: 7309: 7308: 7307: 7303: 7299: 7295: 7294: 7293: 7289: 7285: 7277: 7276: 7275: 7271: 7267: 7263: 7261: 7257: 7253: 7249: 7245: 7243: 7239: 7235: 7230: 7224: 7220: 7218: 7214: 7210: 7199: 7196: 7193: 7192: 7191: 7187: 7183: 7179: 7175: 7174: 7173: 7169: 7165: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7155: 7151: 7147: 7146: 7145: 7141: 7137: 7133: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7123: 7119: 7115: 7111: 7105: 7101: 7097: 7092: 7091: 7090: 7086: 7082: 7078: 7077: 7076: 7072: 7068: 7064: 7062: 7057: 7053: 7052: 7051: 7050: 7046: 7042: 7035: 7028: 7024: 7017: 7010: 7003: 6993: 6984: 6980: 6976: 6972: 6969: 6968: 6967: 6963: 6959: 6955: 6951: 6947: 6944: 6938: 6934: 6930: 6925: 6919: 6914: 6913: 6912: 6908: 6904: 6900: 6893: 6886: 6885: 6884: 6881: 6879: 6875: 6871: 6865: 6861: 6856: 6850: 6846: 6842: 6838: 6834: 6832: 6829: 6824: 6817: 6816: 6815: 6810: 6805: 6804: 6799: 6796: 6794: 6790: 6784: 6783: 6778: 6774: 6764: 6760: 6756: 6749: 6742: 6741: 6740: 6737: 6735: 6729: 6724: 6713: 6703: 6692: 6682: 6672: 6662: 6652: 6642: 6632: 6623: 6618: 6617: 6616: 6613: 6608: 6599: 6594: 6593: 6592: 6588: 6582: 6581: 6576: 6572: 6571: 6570: 6567: 6562: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6549: 6545: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6538: 6534: 6528: 6527: 6511: 6508: 6501: 6497: 6496: 6495: 6492: 6489: 6485: 6478: 6470: 6469: 6466: 6462: 6458: 6454: 6452: 6449: 6448: 6444: 6443: 6439: 6438: 6434: 6433: 6428: 6424: 6423: 6418: 6415: 6409: 6405: 6403: 6399: 6395: 6391: 6387: 6385: 6382: 6377: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6365: 6361: 6357: 6356: 6352: 6349: 6344: 6338: 6332: 6331:edit conflict 6327: 6326: 6323: 6320: 6316: 6311: 6306: 6305: 6304: 6303: 6300: 6289: 6285: 6282: 6281: 6280: 6276: 6273: 6271: 6263: 6256: 6245: 6240: 6235: 6234: 6229: 6226: 6222: 6218: 6214: 6209: 6203: 6198: 6197: 6182: 6179: 6174: 6168: 6164: 6159: 6158: 6157: 6154: 6152: 6146: 6144: 6139: 6138:SportingFlyer 6135: 6131: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6122: 6117: 6110: 6106: 6102: 6098: 6094: 6093: 6092: 6089: 6087: 6081: 6079: 6074: 6073:SportingFlyer 6070: 6065: 6063: 6060: 6055: 6054: 6053: 6050: 6045: 6039: 6038:Midnight Lace 6035: 6031: 6027: 6023: 6019: 6015: 6014: 6013: 6010: 6008: 6002: 6000: 5995: 5994:SportingFlyer 5990: 5989: 5984: 5981: 5980: 5979: 5976: 5969: 5964: 5960: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5955: 5948: 5945: 5940: 5934: 5930: 5926: 5925: 5924: 5921: 5916: 5909: 5905: 5901: 5899: 5897: 5895: 5893: 5890: 5884: 5883:SportingFlyer 5879: 5878: 5877: 5874: 5872: 5866: 5864: 5859: 5858:SportingFlyer 5855: 5850: 5846: 5845: 5844: 5843: 5840: 5837: 5832: 5831: 5826: 5821: 5815: 5808: 5807: 5800: 5792: 5785: 5780: 5778: 5774: 5770: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5760: 5756: 5752: 5748: 5744: 5739: 5733: 5726: 5725:edit conflict 5721: 5719: 5715: 5711: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5698: 5692: 5685: 5684: 5661: 5658: 5656: 5652: 5648: 5642: 5638: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5627: 5623: 5618: 5617: 5616: 5613: 5612: 5611: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5596: 5592: 5588: 5582: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5570: 5566: 5561: 5559: 5555: 5551: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5537: 5533: 5520: 5516: 5512: 5507: 5506: 5501: 5497: 5493: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5470: 5465: 5461: 5457: 5453: 5452: 5443: 5439: 5435: 5430: 5427: 5423: 5419: 5416: 5412: 5408: 5404: 5400: 5396: 5393: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5371: 5366: 5364: 5361: 5357: 5354: 5352: 5349: 5347: 5341: 5339: 5334: 5333:SportingFlyer 5330: 5326: 5324: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5312: 5308: 5304: 5300: 5297: 5295: 5291: 5287: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5277: 5273: 5269: 5268:User:Reywas92 5265: 5262:Furthermore, 5261: 5258: 5257:some counties 5254: 5253:well over 100 5250: 5249: 5248: 5245: 5240: 5236: 5232: 5228: 5224: 5220: 5217:There's also 5216: 5208: 5204: 5200: 5196: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5186: 5184: 5178: 5176: 5171: 5170:SportingFlyer 5167: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5156: 5152: 5148: 5146:Nevada -: --> 5143: 5139: 5135: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5125: 5123: 5117: 5115: 5110: 5109:SportingFlyer 5106: 5102: 5096: 5093: 5091: 5085: 5083: 5078: 5077:SportingFlyer 5074: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5049: 5046: 5040: 5036: 5033: 5031: 5027: 5023: 5018: 5015: 5013: 5010: 5005: 4999: 4996: 4994: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4980: 4977: 4975: 4972: 4970: 4964: 4962: 4957: 4956:SportingFlyer 4953: 4948: 4945: 4944: 4939: 4936: 4931: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4919: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4903: 4898: 4893: 4890: 4889: 4886: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4869: 4868:edit conflict 4864: 4858: 4855: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4800: 4799: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4784: 4781: 4775: 4772: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4742: 4739: 4738: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4731: 4726: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4705: 4701: 4696: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4674: 4671: 4668: 4665: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4655: 4652: 4649: 4645: 4642: 4636: 4633: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4625: 4622: 4617: 4616: 4614: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4597: 4584: 4581: 4578: 4575: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4565: 4562: 4559: 4555: 4552: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4544: 4541: 4536: 4535: 4533: 4527: 4526: 4522: 4517: 4516: 4512: 4511: 4508: 4506: 4501: 4488: 4485: 4480: 4478: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4462:Jo-Jo Eumerus 4459: 4457: 4454: 4449: 4447: 4442: 4441: 4432: 4429: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4391:69.157.252.96 4388: 4387: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4352: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4340: 4335: 4327: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4316: 4313: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4288: 4284: 4283: 4280: 4277: 4272: 4270: 4265: 4261: 4260: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4238:69.157.252.96 4235: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4224: 4219: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4204: 4199: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4187: 4182: 4172: 4170: 4167: 4162: 4156: 4155: 4149: 4145: 4142: 4137: 4131: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4113: 4108: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4090:69.157.252.96 4087: 4086: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4067: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4037: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4003:CSD criteria 4002: 3999: 3998: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3982: 3978: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3926: 3924: 3921: 3917: 3909: 3904: 3900: 3899:Buda, Hungary 3892: 3885:but also the 3884: 3876: 3875:disambiguator 3872: 3871: 3868: 3865: 3860: 3854: 3850: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3818: 3814: 3813: 3800: 3797: 3792: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3781: 3776: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3740: 3735: 3729: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3719: 3716: 3711: 3705: 3701: 3698: 3697: 3689: 3685: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3664: 3661: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3644: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3625: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3587: 3582: 3579: 3577: 3572: 3567: 3566: 3561: 3558: 3552: 3548: 3543: 3538: 3533: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3513: 3509: 3504: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3493: 3488: 3483: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3463: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3448: 3445: 3443: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3369: 3364: 3362: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3318: 3315: 3313: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3299: 3296: 3295: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3240: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3201: 3199: 3195: 3194: 3184: 3180: 3174: 3172: 3168: 3165: 3163: 3159: 3153: 3152: 3150:Crouch, Swale 3145: 3140: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3108: 3106: 3103: 3098: 3094: 3091: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3063: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3021: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2984: 2982: 2976: 2970: 2968: 2960: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2944: 2942: 2937: 2934: 2928: 2923: 2920: 2919: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2845: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2832: 2828: 2825: 2823: 2820: 2815: 2809: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2792: 2791: 2789:Crouch, Swale 2784: 2783: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2763: 2762: 2756: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2726: 2723: 2715: 2710: 2709: 2706: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2699: 2698: 2692: 2687: 2682: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2623: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2604: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2585: 2583: 2576: 2571: 2563: 2557: 2550: 2545: 2538: 2535: 2532: 2527: 2522: 2521: 2510: 2507: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2482: 2477: 2472: 2467: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2420: 2416: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2388: 2383: 2380: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2334: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2233: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2219: 2212: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2197: 2195: 2191: 2184: 2176: 2163: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2138: 2137:Shhhnotsoloud 2133: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2114: 2109: 2105: 2103: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080:Shhhnotsoloud 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2062:Regularly at 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2015: 2005: 2000: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1947: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1936: 1935: 1928: 1916: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1889: 1886: 1885: 1883: 1882:Strong oppose 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1868: 1862: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1835: 1833: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1820: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1804: 1800: 1786: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1750: 1748: 1747: 1740: 1736: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1698: 1692: 1690: 1685: 1684: 1679: 1676:For clarity, 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1669: 1666: 1664: 1658: 1656: 1651: 1650: 1644: 1637: 1630: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1607: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555:New wording: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1533: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1452:Jo-Jo Eumerus 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1430:Jo-Jo Eumerus 1427: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1406: 1403: 1401: 1396: 1394: 1390: 1387: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1354: 1350: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1260: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1193: 1182: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1161: 1156: 1146: 1137: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1106:Shhhnotsoloud 1103: 1099: 1095: 1088: 1080: 1075: 1074:Seraphimblade 1071: 1067: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1000: 995: 994: 993: 989: 985: 980: 977: 974: 973: 972: 968: 964: 960: 955: 951: 947: 944: 940: 936: 932: 924: 917: 911: 906: 905: 904: 900: 896: 892: 889: 885: 878: 868: 857: 850: 847: 846: 845: 841: 837: 836: 830: 829: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 806: 799: 796: 795: 794: 790: 786: 781: 779: 775: 771: 766: 765: 764: 760: 756: 752: 749: 745: 744: 741: 738: 736: 732: 728: 727: 721: 717: 713: 709: 708: 707: 696: 695: 694: 690: 686: 685:Jo-Jo Eumerus 682: 681: 676: 672: 668: 663: 659: 655: 651: 650: 649: 648: 645: 642: 641: 640: 631: 627: 626: 617: 613: 609: 605: 599: 594: 593: 592: 589: 586: 582: 577: 576: 575: 574: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 554: 553: 552: 549: 546: 543: 539: 535: 531: 529: 525: 521: 516: 515: 511: 507: 506: 500: 499: 494: 490: 488: 485: 481: 477: 473: 472: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 452: 448: 444: 440: 438: 434: 430: 429: 428: 417: 415: 412: 410: 395: 381: 377: 373: 369: 368: 362: 361: 360: 356: 352: 347: 346: 345: 341: 337: 333: 332: 327: 326: 325: 321: 317: 312: 311: 310: 306: 302: 298: 297: 291: 290: 289: 285: 281: 277: 276: 275: 271: 267: 263: 262: 256: 252: 248: 246: 242: 238: 234: 233: 226: 223: 218: 212: 210: 206: 202: 198: 197: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 179: 178: 175: 170: 163: 162: 161: 160: 156: 152: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 118: 113: 108: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 8938: 8933: 8913: 8876: 8838: 8834: 8809: 8761: 8742: 8716: 8695: 8678: 8661: 8627:nominations. 8623: 8615: 8600: 8599: 8544: 8394: 8330: 8318: 8155: 8139: 8008: 7894: 7849: 7844: 7818: 7798: 7781: 7771: 7767: 7763: 7737: 7721:email client 7713:browser game 7708: 7683: 7678: 7668: 7664: 7649: 7648: 7644: 7635: 7617: 7598: 7580: 7565: 7559: 7536: 7525: 7481: 7420: 7394: 7206: 7197: 7178:Amorymeltzer 7131: 7060: 7055: 7026: 7002:db-copypaste 6996: 6953: 6945: 6877: 6873: 6869: 6863: 6859: 6836: 6801: 6781: 6719: 6681:db-vandalism 6579: 6525: 6521: 6500:Black Falcon 6446: 6441: 6436: 6431: 6309: 6299:Black Falcon 6296: 6278: 6274: 6253: 6231: 6207: 6162: 6148: 6140: 6083: 6075: 6068: 6004: 5996: 5977: 5973: 5972: 5868: 5860: 5802: 5798: 5679: 5677: 5654: 5650: 5646: 5640: 5636: 5606: 5605: 5528: 5525:G14 question 5469:WP:PRESERVEs 5463: 5455: 5413:relevant to 5410: 5406: 5402: 5398: 5369: 5355: 5343: 5335: 5320: 5195:cleanup tool 5180: 5172: 5165: 5119: 5111: 5087: 5079: 5044: 5039:SvG approach 5034: 5016: 4997: 4984: 4983: 4978: 4966: 4958: 4946: 4911:Haberman, NY 4896: 4891: 4872: 4849:reference. – 4803: 4802: 4782: 4697: 4691: 4681: 4653: 4647: 4623: 4620: 4618: 4610: 4609: 4595: 4563: 4557: 4542: 4539: 4537: 4529: 4528: 4520: 4498: 4420: 4357: 4309: 4306:F9 threshold 4286: 4152: 4148:Girth Summit 4125:additionally 4124: 4120: 4046: 4035: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3986:TonyBallioni 3979:I think the 3947: 3943: 3930:TonyBallioni 3907: 3902: 3752: 3699: 3671: 3662: 3645: 3580: 3563: 3559: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3452:TonyBallioni 3446: 3433: 3401: 3395:advice, and 3388: 3352: 3351: 3316: 3303: 3302: 3297: 3210: 3202: 3186: 3166: 3147: 3114:weak support 3113: 3110:Weak support 3109: 3092: 3049: 3007: 2985: 2966: 2945: 2926: 2922:Weak support 2921: 2879: 2871: 2846: 2830: 2826: 2807: 2786: 2768: 2764: 2727: 2719: 2704: 2695: 2683: 2624: 2605: 2593:User:DPL bot 2586: 2579: 2548: 2544:no consensus 2543: 2536: 2530: 2523: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2423: 2342: 2316: 2280: 2276: 2205: 2199: 2165: 2161: 2061: 1969:on this page 1966: 1932: 1919: 1895:subjective. 1881: 1859: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1813: 1808: 1796: 1745: 1744: 1732: 1729:Problem case 1694: 1686: 1682: 1677: 1660: 1652: 1648: 1642: 1611: 1610: 1578: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1554: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1534: 1523: 1520: 1496: 1492: 1484: 1480: 1477:used to read 1469: 1465: 1444:in this edit 1407: 1404: 1397: 1391: 1384: 1321: 1299: 1282: 1263: 1240: 1239: 1217: 1199: 1192:bolded !vote 1191: 1189: 1188: 1164:— Preceding 1162: 1138: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1114:list article 1113: 1091: 1065: 1047: 1032: 958: 953: 938: 934: 930: 884:User:Hasteur 833: 739: 724: 700: 699: 635: 634: 603: 503: 475: 442: 421: 420: 365: 329: 294: 259: 187:Andy Dingley 182: 151:Andy Dingley 148: 111: 109: 106: 78: 43: 37: 8683:Atlantic306 7846:WP:PROXYING 7717:web browser 7698:✉ talk page 7665:Weak oppose 7569:(including 7551:Google Docs 6997:Currently, 6862:, not just 6676:, although 6360:PrussianOwl 6297:Thanks, -- 6169:). Regards 6109:Herceg Novi 6030:WP:PRESERVE 6026:WP:DRAFTIFY 5791:WP:DRAFTIFY 5022:Smartyllama 4819:Staszek Lem 4066:Eureka Lott 3830:Eureka Lott 3757:Narky Blert 3469:implausible 3336:Draft:24453 3245:Narky Blert 3205:: Because 2888:Narky Blert 2746:Narky Blert 2629:; but it's 2417:as part of 1565:substantial 1541:substantial 1118:Narky Blert 1036:PrussianOwl 916:throw shade 770:Atlantic306 662:RFUD-helper 520:Atlantic306 36:This is an 8873:WP:NOTHERE 8864:ANI report 8637:attention. 8620:WP:CSD#A11 7855:Koopinator 7823:User:SoWhy 7748:and later 7016:db-copyvio 6651:db-negublp 6641:db-negublp 6022:WP:PRODNOM 5323:WP:GEOLAND 5299:User:CJK09 5138:WP:STATION 4505:WP:GEOLAND 4326:KeithTyler 4130:Iridescent 3942:These are 3891:Foo (game) 3858:TheAwesome 3838:EurekaLott 3790:TheAwesome 3774:TheAwesome 3733:TheAwesome 3709:TheAwesome 3650:Agathoclea 2813:TheAwesome 2627:WP:SNOWily 2549:status quo 2413:Reviewing 2357:good faith 2211:Db-blanked 2194:good faith 2183:Db-blanked 2042:Kasper2006 2004:Kasper2006 1973:Kasper2006 1715:Trialpears 1683:Doug Mehus 1649:Doug Mehus 1573:seven days 1549:seven days 1236:Discussion 476:one minute 112:one minute 95:Archive 80 90:Archive 79 85:Archive 78 79:Archive 77 73:Archive 76 68:Archive 75 60:Archive 70 8896:Thryduulf 8843:Thryduulf 8812:Passenger 8795:Thryduulf 8764:Passenger 8748:SmokeyJoe 8647:SmokeyJoe 8564:Thryduulf 8541:Thryduulf 8528:Thryduulf 8498:Thryduulf 8467:Thryduulf 8432:Thryduulf 8391:Thryduulf 8353:Thryduulf 8296:Thryduulf 8112:SmokeyJoe 8099:SmokeyJoe 8074:TheImaCow 8061:TheImaCow 8032:TheImaCow 8016:TheImaCow 7987:Thryduulf 7956:Thryduulf 7941:George Ho 7927:Thryduulf 7921:George Ho 7905:George Ho 7750:clarified 7603:Thryduulf 7555:Chrome OS 7549:(such as 7379:Thryduulf 7342:Thryduulf 7312:Thryduulf 7284:Thryduulf 7164:Barkeep49 7150:Thryduulf 6929:Thryduulf 6918:Jonesey95 6903:Jonesey95 6864:incorrect 6860:vandalism 6722:Passenger 6661:db-attack 6631:db-attack 6457:Thryduulf 6432:King of ♥ 6394:Thryduulf 6228:Anarchyte 6213:Thryduulf 5992:clearly. 5805:Anarchyte 5769:Barkeep49 5732:Anarchyte 5710:Barkeep49 5682:Anarchyte 5641:currently 5622:Thryduulf 5581:Thryduulf 5565:SmokeyJoe 5550:Thryduulf 5227:WP:BURDEN 5073:WP:BEFORE 5058:Thryduulf 4952:WP:BEFORE 4915:dlthewave 4877:Thryduulf 4851:dlthewave 4768:dlthewave 4675:Elevation 4634:database. 4585:Elevation 4553:database. 4377:Thryduulf 4222:(blether) 4185:(blether) 4017:Thryduulf 3967:Barkeep49 3953:Thryduulf 3629:Thryduulf 3416:Thryduulf 3393:WP:NEWCSD 3374:Thryduulf 3277:Thryduulf 3128:going to 3120:going to 2903:Thryduulf 2884:WP:INTDAB 2855:Thryduulf 2851:WP:NEWCSD 2834:Thryduulf 2722:WP:PTOPIC 2631:WP:COSTLY 2597:WP:INTDAB 2542:There is 2450:George Ho 2283:buttons. 2144:Thryduulf 2028:Thryduulf 1949:Thryduulf 1897:Thryduulf 1771:this edit 1678:eliminate 1596:Thryduulf 1488:template. 1365:Thryduulf 1249:SmokeyJoe 1205:Thryduulf 1194:. Thanks. 1070:WP:REFUND 999:SmokeyJoe 984:SmokeyJoe 910:SmokeyJoe 895:SmokeyJoe 819:SmokeyJoe 785:Barkeep49 755:SmokeyJoe 748:WP:REFUND 658:WP:REFUND 630:WP:REFUND 351:Barkeep49 316:Barkeep49 280:Barkeep49 237:SmokeyJoe 201:Barkeep49 8700:WP:CREEP 8116:RoySmith 8082:RoySmith 7725:Adam9007 7513:Glades12 7182:Primefac 7136:Primefac 7118:Adam9007 7081:Glades12 7041:Primefac 6958:Adam9007 6841:Glades12 6798:Glades12 6777:Glades12 6544:Glades12 6506:xaosflux 6488:RoySmith 6413:xaosflux 6167:WP:ATD-I 5743:WP:BEANS 5464:redirect 5403:articles 5360:Reywas92 5244:Reywas92 4900:editors. 4787:Glades12 4405:Primefac 4362:Primefac 4292:Glades12 4136:Primefac 4076:Primefac 3911:adopted. 3666:RfD. ~ 3596:JHunterJ 3405:BEANS X2 3368:Hog Farm 3322:Hog Farm 3072:JHunterJ 3031:JHunterJ 2990:JHunterJ 2936:a·po·des 2491:WP:CREEP 2322:Glades12 2261:WP:CREEP 1989:Glades12 1803:untitled 1799:upcoming 1779:RoySmith 1581:kingboyk 1504:kingboyk 1481:orphaned 1448:this one 1411:kingboyk 1353:contribs 1304:Glades12 1285:Gale5050 1222:Glades12 1178:contribs 1166:unsigned 667:kingboyk 608:kingboyk 598:RoySmith 585:RoySmith 562:kingboyk 542:RoySmith 534:WP:BITEy 460:kingboyk 8743:Comment 8730:Hasteur 8616:Support 8603:Hut 8.5 8319:get rid 7978:Cryptic 7850:allowed 7827:Eostrix 7819:Support 7799:Support 7782:Support 7738:Comment 7709:Support 7689:WP:NWEB 7674:Hut 8.5 7652:Hut 8.5 7599:Support 6748:uw-hoax 6691:db-hoax 6319:Cryptic 6202:Uanfala 6059:Cryptic 6018:WP:PROD 5904:Uanfala 5784:Hasteur 5755:Hasteur 5747:WP:BURO 5609:Hut 8.5 5035:Comment 4987:Hut 8.5 4892:Support 4806:Hut 8.5 4783:Neutral 3944:usually 3903:somehow 3895:Hungary 3893:or the 3842:WP:RDAB 3817:WP:RDAB 3728:WP:CENT 3700:Comment 3646:Support 3581:Opppose 3560:Support 3532:King of 3477:King of 3439:Cryptic 3397:WP:RDAB 3389:Support 3355:Hut 8.5 3317:Support 3306:Hut 8.5 3257:Sadly, 3171:DPL bot 3134:WP:RDAB 2986:Support 2950:WP:RDAB 2886:error. 2808:Support 2765:Support 2714:WP:RDAB 2588:WP:RDAB 2466:King of 2432:. The " 2317:Support 2281:contest 2277:contest 1854:Laundry 1775:Cryptic 1342:davidwr 1134:DPL bot 1051:Hasteur 1006:Hasteur 976:Hasteur 963:Hasteur 654:Hut 8.5 638:Hut 8.5 581:WP:BITE 455:later). 255:CAT:CSD 130:history 39:archive 8915:C.Fred 8892:WP:IAR 8878:C.Fred 8869:WP:IAR 8835:always 8817:pigeon 8769:pigeon 8717:Oppose 8696:Oppose 8679:Oppose 8662:oppose 8486:話して下さい 8455:話して下さい 8381:話して下さい 8341:話して下さい 8257:話して下さい 8210:SERIAL 8176:話して下さい 8159:WP:NFT 8149:, and 8119:(talk) 8085:(talk) 8078:WP:UPE 8037:WP:BMB 7871:WP:BMB 7786:Bsherr 7693:Naypta 7684:should 7641:WP:WEB 7636:Oppose 7618:Oppose 7539:Naypta 7533:and A7 7499:331dot 7456:Bsherr 7401:Bsherr 7372:Bsherr 7357:Bsherr 7298:Bsherr 7266:Bsherr 7252:Bsherr 7234:Bsherr 7096:Bsherr 7067:Bsherr 7034:db-g12 6975:Bsherr 6946:Oppose 6782:Antila 6755:Bsherr 6727:pigeon 6598:Antila 6580:Antila 6526:Antila 6518:Hoaxes 6491:(talk) 6427:WP:MFD 6337:WP:VPP 6163:before 6134:WP:ATD 6130:WP:ATD 6105:GBooks 6097:WP:ATD 5908:Evad37 5854:WP:G13 5849:WP:G13 5738:WP:G13 5577:Well, 5456:oppose 5415:WP:NOR 5370:is not 5017:Oppose 4998:Oppose 4979:Oppose 4947:Oppose 4421:assume 4358:should 4351:db-g12 4287:always 4217:Summit 4180:Summit 4144:deprod 4061:WP:CSD 4009:always 3887:(game) 3663:Oppose 3614:Certes 3517:Certes 3447:Oppose 3434:delete 3298:Oppose 3263:Certes 3203:Oppose 3179:INTDAB 3167:Oppose 3093:Oppose 2946:Oppose 2847:Oppose 2773:Certes 2677:, and 2612:WP:CSD 2608:WP:RFD 2601:gnomes 2504:ASTILY 2397:Certes 2299:Bsherr 2285:Certes 2247:, and 2245:WP:G13 2122:Certes 2064:WP:RfD 1801:" or " 1782:(talk) 1777:. -- 1762:(talk) 1616:Thomas 1218:Oppose 1200:Oppose 1185:Survey 1170:Dmehus 1122:et al. 1066:at all 954:single 943:WP:NOT 815:WP:DUD 705:Thomas 588:(talk) 545:(talk) 447:refund 426:Thomas 8552:help! 8402:help! 8057:SoWhy 7897:WP:F8 7742:added 7687:meet 7680:SoWhy 7417:Amory 7203:Amory 7009:WP:G6 6897:, as 6809:help! 6622:SoWhy 6575:SoWhy 6239:help! 5620:G14. 5511:CJK09 5492:CJK09 5434:CJK09 5272:CJK09 5199:Cxbrx 5151:Cxbrx 5134:WP:RS 4897:could 4833:CJK09 4750:CJK09 4700:CJK09 4599:CJK09 4264:Girth 4234:WP:G5 4214:Girth 4177:Girth 4121:other 4001:Every 3916:WP:R3 3908:links 3668:Amory 3571:help! 3403:: --> 3402:: --> 3196:, at 3046:Amory 3004:Amory 2967:Godsy 2620:WP:G6 2616:WP:R3 2430:WP:F7 2419:WP:F7 2257:WP:G8 2253:WP:G6 2251:also 2241:WP:U1 2237:WP:G7 2229:WP:U1 2225:WP:G7 2216:(see 2188:(see 1934:KAP03 1857:Pizza 1843:(The 1636:Db-t3 1526:WP:T3 1324:Dq209 1300:would 1265:Kusma 1242:area. 1102:Nabla 840:talk 731:talk 510:talk 367:Kusma 331:Kusma 296:Kusma 261:Kusma 138:watch 134:links 16:< 8920:talk 8900:talk 8883:talk 8847:talk 8823:talk 8799:talk 8775:talk 8734:talk 8708:talk 8698:per 8687:talk 8670:talk 8651:talk 8592:here 8568:talk 8532:talk 8502:talk 8471:talk 8436:talk 8370:and 8357:talk 8331:then 8325:and 8300:talk 8196:Chat 8192:Iffy 8103:talk 8095:tell 8065:talk 8020:talk 8012:here 7995:talk 7991:Izno 7960:talk 7945:talk 7931:talk 7909:talk 7859:talk 7831:talk 7790:talk 7744:per 7729:talk 7695:☺ | 7677:one. 7607:talk 7557:). 7517:talk 7503:talk 7488:talk 7460:talk 7405:talk 7393:WP:C 7383:talk 7361:talk 7346:talk 7331:talk 7316:talk 7302:talk 7288:talk 7270:talk 7256:talk 7250:. -- 7246:See 7238:talk 7186:talk 7168:talk 7154:talk 7140:talk 7132:mean 7122:talk 7100:talk 7085:talk 7071:talk 7056:copy 7045:talk 7023:here 6979:talk 6962:talk 6933:talk 6907:talk 6901:? – 6866:. ~ 6845:talk 6759:talk 6733:talk 6636:and 6548:talk 6461:talk 6398:talk 6364:talk 6317:". — 6217:talk 6208:some 5975:Evad 5819:work 5813:talk 5773:talk 5759:talk 5714:talk 5696:work 5690:talk 5637:will 5626:talk 5595:talk 5569:talk 5554:talk 5536:talk 5515:talk 5496:talk 5481:talk 5477:Izno 5438:talk 5426:this 5329:WP:V 5311:talk 5290:talk 5286:Izno 5276:talk 5235:WP:N 5233:and 5231:WP:V 5203:talk 5155:talk 5062:talk 5047:avix 5026:talk 4881:talk 4837:talk 4823:talk 4791:talk 4754:talk 4704:talk 4688:This 4684:This 4632:GNIS 4613:GNIS 4603:talk 4551:GNIS 4532:GNIS 4500:GNIS 4466:talk 4409:talk 4395:talk 4381:talk 4366:talk 4296:talk 4242:talk 4141:prod 4107:Wily 4094:talk 4080:talk 4055:and 4021:talk 4005:must 3990:talk 3971:talk 3957:talk 3934:talk 3863:Hwyh 3824:and 3795:Hwyh 3779:Hwyh 3761:talk 3753:Done 3738:Hwyh 3714:Hwyh 3654:talk 3633:talk 3618:talk 3600:talk 3521:talk 3456:talk 3420:talk 3378:talk 3346:and 3326:talk 3281:talk 3267:talk 3249:talk 3224:talk 3211:Tzar 3183:RDAB 3157:talk 3124:and 3097:Wily 3076:talk 3035:talk 2994:talk 2974:CONT 2933:Wug· 2907:talk 2892:talk 2859:talk 2838:talk 2818:Hwyh 2796:talk 2777:talk 2750:talk 2740:and 2555:qedk 2551:. -- 2493:and 2454:talk 2401:talk 2326:talk 2289:talk 2255:and 2148:talk 2126:talk 2097:. – 2084:talk 2046:talk 2032:talk 1993:talk 1977:talk 1953:talk 1901:talk 1769:See 1719:talk 1623:talk 1600:talk 1585:talk 1508:talk 1456:talk 1434:talk 1415:talk 1369:talk 1349:talk 1328:talk 1308:talk 1289:talk 1253:talk 1226:talk 1209:talk 1174:talk 1126:only 1055:talk 1040:talk 1010:talk 988:talk 967:talk 931:zero 899:talk 823:talk 789:talk 774:talk 759:talk 712:talk 689:talk 671:talk 612:talk 566:talk 524:talk 474:The 464:talk 433:talk 355:talk 320:talk 284:talk 241:talk 205:talk 191:talk 155:talk 142:logs 126:talk 122:edit 8943:DES 8839:and 8624:not 8546:Guy 8521:JzG 8396:Guy 8279:Why 8241:Why 8198:-- 8161:or 8048:Why 7895:If 7881:Why 7804:DES 7719:or 7669:any 7647:). 7623:MrX 7589:Why 7061:cut 7027:any 6827:Why 6803:Guy 6775:Hi 6611:Why 6573:Hi 6565:Why 6392:). 6380:Why 6347:Why 6310:not 6283:... 6233:Guy 6177:Why 6120:Why 6048:Why 6024:). 5943:Why 5919:Why 5799:can 5411:not 5008:Why 4934:Why 4913:. – 4729:Why 4692:not 4624:all 4543:all 4477:DES 4446:DES 4338:Why 4269:DES 4202:Why 4165:Why 4013:and 3948:not 3897:of 3889:of 3881:of 3565:Guy 3512:RfD 3239:PBS 3220:PBS 3192:947 3160:) 2954:RFD 2880:are 2799:) 2694:to 2497:. - 2375:or 2373:G13 1937:() 1929:. 1773:by 1758:PMC 1643:may 1561:and 1351:)/( 1150:or 1108:'s 1087:G14 959:YOU 835:DGG 817:. — 726:DGG 604:you 558:Roy 505:DGG 484:jni 221:Why 173:Why 110:Is 8932:I 8922:) 8902:) 8885:) 8849:) 8801:) 8736:) 8710:) 8702:. 8689:) 8672:) 8653:) 8570:) 8534:) 8504:) 8489:) 8473:) 8458:) 8438:) 8384:) 8359:) 8344:) 8302:) 8274:So 8260:) 8236:So 8179:) 8145:, 8105:) 8067:) 8043:So 8022:) 7997:) 7962:) 7947:) 7933:) 7911:) 7876:So 7861:) 7833:) 7821:, 7792:) 7731:) 7701:| 7626:🖋 7609:) 7584:So 7519:) 7505:) 7490:) 7462:) 7429:• 7425:• 7407:) 7385:) 7363:) 7355:-- 7348:) 7333:) 7318:) 7304:) 7290:) 7272:) 7258:) 7240:) 7215:• 7211:• 7188:) 7170:) 7156:) 7142:) 7124:) 7102:) 7094:-- 7087:) 7073:) 7047:) 7039:? 7037:}} 7031:{{ 7019:}} 7013:{{ 7005:}} 6999:{{ 6981:) 6964:) 6935:) 6909:) 6895:}} 6889:{{ 6847:) 6837:am 6822:So 6791:) 6761:) 6751:}} 6745:{{ 6715:}} 6709:{{ 6705:}} 6699:{{ 6694:}} 6688:{{ 6684:}} 6678:{{ 6674:}} 6671:G3 6668:{{ 6664:}} 6658:{{ 6654:}} 6648:{{ 6644:}} 6638:{{ 6634:}} 6628:{{ 6606:So 6589:) 6560:So 6550:) 6535:) 6480:}} 6474:{{ 6463:) 6400:) 6375:So 6366:) 6342:So 6265:}} 6259:{{ 6219:) 6172:So 6115:So 6043:So 5978:37 5938:So 5914:So 5816:• 5775:) 5761:) 5753:) 5716:) 5693:• 5628:) 5597:) 5571:) 5556:) 5538:) 5517:) 5498:) 5483:) 5440:) 5313:) 5292:) 5278:) 5205:) 5157:) 5064:) 5028:) 5003:So 4929:So 4883:) 4839:) 4825:) 4793:) 4756:) 4724:So 4706:) 4605:) 4468:) 4411:) 4397:) 4383:) 4368:) 4354:}} 4348:{{ 4333:So 4298:) 4244:) 4197:So 4160:So 4096:) 4082:) 4023:) 3992:) 3973:) 3959:) 3936:) 3763:) 3730:. 3702:: 3680:• 3676:• 3656:) 3635:) 3620:) 3602:) 3549:♠ 3523:) 3494:♠ 3458:) 3422:) 3399:. 3380:) 3342:, 3338:, 3328:) 3283:) 3269:) 3251:) 3226:) 3175:do 3078:) 3058:• 3054:• 3037:) 3016:• 3012:• 2996:) 2963:— 2959:R3 2931:— 2909:) 2894:) 2861:) 2840:) 2779:) 2752:) 2744:. 2736:, 2732:, 2681:. 2673:, 2669:, 2665:, 2661:, 2657:, 2653:, 2649:, 2645:, 2641:, 2637:, 2584:. 2528:. 2483:♠ 2456:) 2403:) 2377:U1 2371:, 2369:G8 2367:, 2365:G7 2363:, 2361:G6 2328:) 2291:) 2243:, 2239:, 2220:). 2218:G7 2214:}} 2208:{{ 2190:G7 2186:}} 2180:{{ 2150:) 2128:) 2116:→ 2086:) 2048:) 2034:) 1995:) 1979:) 1955:) 1903:) 1874:) 1871:c̄ 1860:03 1839:→ 1830:→ 1821:→ 1760:♠ 1749:iz 1721:) 1639:}} 1633:{{ 1625:) 1602:) 1587:) 1579:-- 1532:? 1510:) 1493:OR 1485:or 1458:) 1450:. 1436:) 1417:) 1409:-- 1402:. 1386:T3 1371:) 1330:) 1310:) 1291:) 1276:) 1255:) 1228:) 1211:) 1180:) 1176:• 1158:}} 1152:{{ 1148:}} 1142:{{ 1120:, 1072:. 1057:) 1042:) 1012:) 990:) 982:-- 969:) 926:}} 920:{{ 901:) 880:}} 874:{{ 870:}} 864:{{ 859:}} 853:{{ 842:) 825:) 808:}} 802:{{ 791:) 776:) 761:) 733:) 714:) 691:) 673:) 665:-- 614:) 568:) 526:) 466:) 435:) 378:) 357:) 342:) 322:) 307:) 286:) 272:) 243:) 216:So 207:) 193:) 168:So 157:) 140:| 136:| 132:| 128:| 124:| 64:← 8918:( 8898:( 8881:( 8845:( 8826:) 8820:( 8797:( 8790:: 8786:@ 8778:) 8772:( 8757:: 8753:@ 8750:: 8746:@ 8732:( 8726:: 8722:@ 8706:( 8685:( 8668:( 8649:( 8566:( 8554:) 8550:( 8530:( 8523:: 8519:@ 8500:( 8483:( 8469:( 8452:( 8434:( 8423:: 8419:@ 8416:) 8412:( 8404:) 8400:( 8378:( 8355:( 8338:( 8298:( 8254:( 8194:★ 8173:( 8101:( 8063:( 8034:: 8030:@ 8018:( 7993:( 7958:( 7943:( 7929:( 7923:: 7919:@ 7907:( 7857:( 7829:( 7788:( 7772:a 7770:c 7768:z 7766:a 7764:m 7727:( 7605:( 7573:) 7515:( 7501:( 7486:( 7458:( 7433:) 7431:c 7427:t 7423:u 7421:( 7403:( 7397:D 7395:S 7381:( 7374:: 7370:@ 7359:( 7344:( 7329:( 7314:( 7300:( 7286:( 7268:( 7254:( 7236:( 7219:) 7217:c 7213:t 7209:u 7207:( 7195: 7184:( 7166:( 7152:( 7138:( 7120:( 7098:( 7083:( 7069:( 7043:( 6977:( 6960:( 6952:( 6931:( 6920:: 6916:@ 6905:( 6878:a 6876:c 6874:z 6872:a 6870:m 6843:( 6811:) 6807:( 6788:✉ 6785:( 6757:( 6736:) 6730:( 6624:: 6620:@ 6600:: 6596:@ 6586:✉ 6583:( 6546:( 6532:✉ 6529:( 6459:( 6447:♠ 6442:♣ 6437:♦ 6396:( 6362:( 6353:' 6333:) 6329:( 6241:) 6237:( 6215:( 6204:: 6200:@ 6151:C 6147:· 6143:T 6086:C 6082:· 6078:T 6057:— 6007:C 6003:· 5999:T 5885:: 5881:@ 5871:C 5867:· 5863:T 5822:) 5810:( 5786:: 5782:@ 5771:( 5757:( 5734:: 5730:@ 5727:) 5723:( 5712:( 5699:) 5687:( 5655:a 5653:c 5651:z 5649:a 5647:m 5624:( 5593:( 5583:: 5579:@ 5567:( 5552:( 5534:( 5513:( 5494:( 5479:( 5436:( 5417:. 5346:C 5342:· 5338:T 5325:. 5309:( 5288:( 5274:( 5201:( 5183:C 5179:· 5175:T 5153:( 5122:C 5118:· 5114:T 5090:C 5086:· 5082:T 5060:( 5045:T 5024:( 4969:C 4965:· 4961:T 4918:☎ 4879:( 4870:) 4866:( 4854:☎ 4835:( 4821:( 4789:( 4771:☎ 4752:( 4702:( 4601:( 4464:( 4428:¶ 4407:( 4393:( 4379:( 4364:( 4328:: 4324:@ 4315:¶ 4294:( 4240:( 4138:: 4134:@ 4111:D 4092:( 4078:( 4019:( 3988:( 3969:( 3955:( 3932:( 3759:( 3704: 3684:) 3682:c 3678:t 3674:u 3672:( 3652:( 3631:( 3616:( 3598:( 3573:) 3569:( 3546:♣ 3541:♦ 3536:♥ 3519:( 3491:♣ 3486:♦ 3481:♥ 3454:( 3418:( 3376:( 3370:: 3366:@ 3324:( 3279:( 3265:( 3247:( 3241:: 3237:@ 3222:( 3189:J 3154:( 3132:( 3101:D 3074:( 3062:) 3060:c 3056:t 3052:u 3050:( 3033:( 3020:) 3018:c 3014:t 3010:u 3008:( 2992:( 2977:) 2938: 2905:( 2890:( 2857:( 2836:( 2793:( 2775:( 2748:( 2716:. 2572:) 2569:c 2565:愛 2561:t 2558:( 2501:F 2480:♣ 2475:♦ 2470:♥ 2452:( 2399:( 2379:. 2324:( 2287:( 2231:. 2223:( 2146:( 2139:: 2135:@ 2124:( 2082:( 2044:( 2030:( 2016:. 2006:: 2002:@ 1991:( 1975:( 1951:( 1931:- 1899:( 1866:d 1863:( 1756:♠ 1746:L 1717:( 1697:C 1693:· 1689:T 1663:C 1659:· 1655:T 1621:( 1614:C 1598:( 1583:( 1575:. 1551:. 1506:( 1454:( 1432:( 1413:( 1367:( 1355:) 1347:( 1344:/ 1326:( 1306:( 1287:( 1274:c 1272:· 1270:t 1268:( 1251:( 1224:( 1207:( 1172:( 1053:( 1038:( 1008:( 1001:: 997:@ 986:( 965:( 912:: 908:@ 897:( 890:. 838:( 821:( 787:( 772:( 757:( 729:( 710:( 703:C 687:( 669:( 610:( 600:: 596:@ 564:( 522:( 512:) 508:( 462:( 431:( 424:C 407:G 404:M 401:G 376:c 374:· 372:t 370:( 353:( 340:c 338:· 336:t 334:( 318:( 305:c 303:· 301:t 299:( 293:— 282:( 270:c 268:· 266:t 264:( 239:( 203:( 189:( 153:( 144:) 120:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 77 - Knowledge

Index