Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 79

2010:'s comment just above. if an editor re-prods a page previously deprodded, the sec ond PROD should be summarily and promptly removed, and in any case a reviewing admin should not delete under it. If the editor placing she second prod knew that there had been a previous deprod, that might be grounds to sanction the editor, perhaps a TBAN on placing prods. That would be a matter for ANI. A deprod would not in general block a proper CSD, as several editors have said above. When the issue is much the same, say a prod concern was "not notable" and the deproder gives good reasons why the topic is probably notable, an A7 would probably not be appropriate, as speedy deletions should normally be uncontroversial, and in that case an A7 would clearly not be. A similar conflict might occur between a deprod and an G11 (spam), a well reasonewd prod mightr be evidenc thqt the CSD is not uncontroversial. in any case if a deprod is "iffy" the normal next step is AfD, not CSD or re-prod. And so it should be. Where there is a dispute we need a community discussion leading to a consensus, not a speedy action. 5810:), I would first like to discuss the File PROD and "dfu". Both are seven-day processes but function differently. Both can have tagged files deleted if uncontested. However, File PROD can be contested only once as standard rule by anybody, including the uploader; any reason to contest PROD can be either good or bad or sufficient or insufficient. Meanwhile, "dfu" doesn't allow the uploader to remove the tag but must communicate in order to contest the "dfu". Furthermore, for the uploader, communicating with the person placing the dfu tag can be a hassle, especially when the tagger would refuse to remove the tag and then take a file to FFD. I have stopped using the "dfu" since the implementation of File PROD in 2017, yet I see others still using "dfu". I also don't see why we should keep both other than using "dfu" to avoid the hassle of PROD-turned-FFD unless I'm wrong. -- 7394:

Remember, drafts don't get indexed and don't appear to the outside world unless someone links to it directly. Imho, even MFDing such drafts is unnecessary busywork. Decline them and move on, sooner or later they'll be G13'd anyway. In the few cases where the subject is indeed worthy of inclusion, the creator can fix it. Else, they will most likely abandon it and it will be swept up later. Both MFD or a hypothetical draft-A7 require more work from editors and admins than that. Considering the amount of stuff that actually needs doing, it would be probably more efficient in the long run if we banned MFD nominations of drafts instead, which would result in less time being sunk in such discussions. Those drafts that

190:

author, we see this all the time where a promotional editor appears to be trying to game the system by creating multiple drafts on the same topic, and speedy deletion is the obvious (to me) choice for the "extra" draft (or drafts). But even in the case of multiple creators, the case of redirecting seems weak, since the resulting redirect would then be subject to G6 (via R3's footnote) as an obviously erroneously titled page: why add the extra step instead of simply speedily deleting the extra draft? If editors are uncomfortatble with using G6, I will propose a new category (D10, to parallel A10?) to cover cases of recently created draftspace pages that duplicate the topic of an existing draft.

9559:

suppression of trolls, arguably good deletions, but they are not G6. SPI is probably quite competent handling their own deletions of subpages of WP:SPI, and LTA, but they should not be doing it under G6. SPI freedom to delete outside of deletion policy would appear to be providing an example to other groups that they too may delete outside of deletion policy. I see good reason to create a CSD criterion to cover SPI cases, but I do not see a good reason for GAN admins to have near-arbitrary authority to speedy delete substandard GA reviews. Deleting obviously bogus GA reviews is the same concept, that concept being that some groups of people are not bound by deletion policy. --

2701:

but would clearly not be controversial, usually because recent activity, historical use or occasionally even widespread current use. These are almost always removed before the 7 days are up. With the amount of potentially controversial nominations I'm seeing I've been wondering if it would be better just abolishing the criteria instead; I even asked for a list of all 15 templates deleted using T3 during the month prior to June 12 2020. My opinion based on analyzing this data set was basically that most of them could be dealt with redirects, G2, G4 and wrong namespace G6 leaving just a handful that would need an actual TfD. One of these would be

2321:, I see. On a tangential note, I notice that a closer can treat TfDs with no participation for 7+ days as "PRODs" / soft deletions, where they can be REFUNDed (usually I've seen refunds go back into template space). Wouldn't it make sense to have the soft deletion closes (where rationale was it being a duplicate / otherwise within T3 scope) match up with the T3 undeletion process, so going through one route doesn't end up with different undeletion processes than the other? Note: very picky point though, and more me being curious / raising an observation, rather than pointing out something which is posing a problem currently. 5538:. The notices will notify active editors that their drafts are getting close to the 6 month stage and they can start actively editing them again (which is the goal here). But I'm finding many of the G13s I'm coming across were started by brand new editors 6 months ago, their draft was not accepted or it was never submitted, and they've never returned to editing on Knowledge. I'm not sure if the life of their draft is extended, whether another editor on Knowledge will work on improving it and moving it to main space, without their participation. But that is a different question than the one you were asking. 2710:

are few bad deletions actually being made here because our admins are competent and know what would be considered too far even though this badly worded criteria technically would allow for a deletion. My preference here would be removing the criteria and letting the handful of templates that can't be handled with other criteria or a redirect go to TfD increasing the workload by roughly a percent or two. If not I think the holding period should be kept to allow for some more oversight of this potentially abusable criteria. I'm very curious to see what admins actually review these think though. --

1997:

the previous deprod was well explained. As a general principle, I would think that "quick" processes that receive little scrutiny should not normally be able to override "deeper" ones that have engaged the community at a larger scale (as prods do). But in most cases, why should we resort to speedy deletion in the first place? If there are concerns that the de-prod was iffy, then just prod the page again: it's better to break the minor technical rule against repeat prodding, than to work in a way that technically isn't prohibited but that goes against the general principles of the project. –

3228:

refund, so no need to get stressed about it. There are a very few people with a lot of drafts that cannot handle the work load they set themselves, and we see a lot of their requests. They should probably have them userfied, but its no big deal. The most work is caused by admins who delete g13's without a sd tag, then us refunders have to change the article to reset the 6-month timer. However I have noticed that there are very eager taggers to tag for a sd-g13 withing an hour of the timelimit, so there's no need for admins to delete a draft for g13 without a nomination and notification.

10537:. Typically, some incident of spam or vandalism from 15 years ago would have rendered a given title protected for perpetuity, and when anyone, at whatever point in the near or distant future, tries to create anything at this title (whether it be an article about an unrelated subject with the same name, or a redirect, or a dab page), they will have to jump through completely unnecessary hoops. I don't think the solution here is to add further hoops to jump through. If something truly terrible has been created, then there will almost always be a relevant CSD. The problem with 3135:

deletion of rare rough gems, REFUND was mandated to be easy. Once a user has put in a REFUND request, and an admin should be assumed to have given it a glance, the page is no longer in the category of pages that motivated G13. I think there is no concern at all. If a slightly active editor wants to slowly get around to their intentions, there are no time limits. If their “keep alive” edits annoy you, you should get over it. If their six monthly REFUND requests are a burden, have them userfy the page and strip the AfC taggery so that the problem goes away. —

7969:

would get vexed really quickly. They'd consider taking those pages to XfD little more than overly bureaucratic, pedantic time-wasting. The fact is, it's happening, regardless of whether policy says it should be happening or not, and policy is supposed to reflect consensus and common practice, not vice versa. I do at times think that policies and guidelines give a somewhat romantic reflexion of common practice; the repeated rejection of an explicit criterion won't make it stop I'm afraid. If they're out of other options, they'll probably just invoke IAR anyway.

10838: 10655:

similar disagreement on how carefully and patiently G13s ought to be checked,. I don't like to rely on refund, and will save anything I think potentially savable in those areas I can tell; some equally experienced reviewers think that not worth the trouble. (and this is turn depends somewhat on those disagreement about whether to accept drafts that show notability and are free from promotionalism and copyvio but which have major style erorrs, or to decline them for improvmeent without concern for whether the contirbtor is still around).

6105:. Given that creators are allowed to remove G6 tags, I would imagine that they should be allowed to do so with G14 as well. On a more practical level, I believe this would reduce the maintenance burden around dealing with G14. My impression from monitoring the category from time to time in the past year has been that there are very few clueless newbies who try to do dab pages, and most of the pages I've seen tagged for deletion were created by users who knew the dab guidelines better than the patroller who tagged them for deletion ( 3451:

publication), there was more than one comment to the effect that "An admin is required to apply thought before deleting a speedy candidate". (Also: "CSD is a 'can-delete', not a 'must-delete'" (to be fair, I'm not sure where this user would stand on batch deletion), "Admins handling deletions can and should salvage good content", "Editors convinced that reams of mainspace-ready content will be deleted as a result of this policy tweak must hold a very low opinion of the judgement of our admins"). See

31: 6379: 10650:, which is likely to confuse any reviewer who does not remember the original, and might well slip though when it shouldn't , or at least take more work than it warrants. I am not quite sure how to handle them. If they are better than the original version, they do need to be considered; if they are not, they don't. Unfortunately, they are sometimes tagged without adequate checking for this--and I must admit that I've done this without sufficient care a few times myself. 9179:

might inexplicably stop working and editors will need to scramble to figure out why. The 7-day waiting period at least gives people a chance to notice the impending deletion on their watchlist and make corrections before it happens. I'd support option B only if language was added to ensure that the template has no transclusions (i.e. it's up to the editor who tags the article or the deleting admin to fix any transclusions themselves before deleting the template).

1716:

navigation pages, because the consensus was to add encyclopedic content to them. List articles are valid link targets, and "(disambiguation)" redirects to them should be speedy-able. If editors need links to indicate that the list is intended, the set index article should be moved to the usual "List of " titling, or some correct redirect like "X (list)" or "X (set index article)" should be used instead. I propose striking that phrase from the criterion. --

1418: 10148:. Personally, I do not think they should apply as most of the reasons hard redirects to other namespaces, implausible typos and those shadowing Commons files either do not apply or cause significantly less harm for soft redirects. They are also far less common and so would fail the frequency requirement if proposed as a new criterion. Soft redirects are currently elligble for deletion under any G criteria that apply and I do not propose to change that. 7140: 10673:

The second is so the special situations can be isolated and identified so those involved or interested can look at them and nobody else need to --this would be the reason for a special criterion for SPI, or one for GA. As I work in neither, I will be able ignore both just as I do files and categories. If we came up with a suitable one for drafts, similarly: I could focus on them, while those who want to check what I do could focus on them also.

8488: 1782:

compromise between those editors interested in serving the best interests of readers and those editors interested in rigidly enforcing style guidelines about what can appear on disambiguation pages. If someone is searching for "Foo (disambiguation)" they want to be taken to a page that lists encyclopaedic topics that could reasonably be titled "Foo", reasonably be referred to as "Foo" and/or reasonably be found on a list of "Foo", in : -->

2545:. I'm still in favor of the change, but not as strongly as before. Survey for seasoned administrators: Has this ever been an issue? If not, perhaps this change can be held back until/unless it becomes one, provided there is a general, not necessarily written-down, understanding among administrators that editors can, in fact, remove speedy deletion templates they have placed on pages, even if it was on a page they created. 8133:

should) turn down bogus speedy requests. You'll occasionally get slagged at AfD or something, but that's the role. If the page should be deleted but doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, PROD is usually fine (and I fairly frequently decline speedy requests, then PROD the page), and with the profusion of automated tools, sending something to AfD isn't actually a hassle; if someone feels the need to win a deletion contest

7719:

do apply in draft space, in recent weeks I have found and deleted both hoaxes and attack pages there. This particular proposal is too deletionist, but I would be in favour of something that took out the stale and unnotable. I am not a fan of the whole draftspace concept, but I think it would be a slightly better place if A7 could be applied to drafts that met the A7 criteria, and had not been edited for 30 days.

6716:

I've seen this not just in the mainspace, but in drafts. (Actually, where I've seen this play out most often is: User A copies over content from their dedicated user-subpage containing an article draft; that content was edited in substantive way by user B (or B, C and D); A tags with U1–but that won't be a problem here because the bot is already proposed to only act where the target has only edits by User A).--

3455:. Batch deletion completely removes any judgment about whether the G13 nominated draft is crap to delete or whether it should instead be moved to mainspace (or submitted for review). I don't think that a G13 nom shows that judgment has been applied because I don't think the people currently nominating articles en masse are actually applying any judgment. Below is a table of outcomes for a Korean literature 10882:. WP:CSD#U1 covers things that G7 doesn't, where others have edited their user pages. CSD#U1 is important as a clear statement that every user is responsible for every page they keep in their userspace. There may be a small issue of U1 deletions of userfied pages, but that is a problem for userfications, userfication of any page carries the implication that the user may have it deleted at any time. -- 10080:. As Primefac says, it depends on the relationship between all three pages and the reason why page A was deleted. Given that this is not going to be clear without reading the RfD and making a subjective judgement about how similar the redirects are it is not suitable for speedy deletion. This is especially true as there are many other reasons for avoided double redirects than just alternative spellings. 1744:

as when the storm name was retired in this case). In cases where we expect there to be a disambiguation, like this one, a "FOO (disambiguation)" redirect is able to point searchers who may be looking for such a page to the correct location. It also has the advantage of preventing a duplicate disambiguation from being created if for some reason, an editor cannot find that page. In the case before us,

2104:

more reliable way to get it deleted.) And the deprod absolutely does not invalidate any CSDs - someone above said that it received more scrutiny; I strenuously disagree. Deprodding can be done by anyone and does not at all imply that they know or checked for the CSD criteria. In subjective edge cases an admin considering whether to delete a CSD-tagged article that had previously been deprodded

6224: 9510:

systematic problem here - if a terrible GA review does get shuffled off because it's clearly uncontroversial, then that's a valid G6 to me, but if there's uncertainty, it ending up at MfD is correct. If there's a pattern of certain GA-active admins aggressively deleting stuff in this way, this might be something worth clarifying, but this particular incident doesn't look like one. ~

2061:. I was just trying to point out the apparent absurdity of insisting that a "higher" process (PROD) that has proven too controversial for a given case to be applied again can be overridden by a "lower" process (CSD). Formalities aside, this is akin to insisting that articles that have survived AfD shoudln't be nominated for AfD again, but can instead be prodded. – 7876:

objectivity, uncontestability, frequency and nonredundancy, a general proposal will almost always appear to fail them. (If past experience is any guide, for a proposal here to have a chance of succeeding, it is a necessity to devise and present near fullfledged, concrete language of a proposed criterion, already carefully honed to meet the mentioned standards.)--

2990:

are relatively few topics that are so saturated with redirects that you would struggle to think of an eligible one that's not yet been created. But even if there's no eligible new title, the redirect can simply be moved from the temporary title onto the title formerly occupied by the now moved page, effectively swapping NEWPAGE and OLDPAGE. That's described at

7936:, if for no other reason that to stop criteria such as G2 from being misused for this sort of thing (yes, I often see G2 being misused as a catch-all in draftspace; I've mentioned this before). If we're going to speedy-delete drafts simply because they would never pass muster in article space, I'd much rather it is done under a criterion that at least means 9287:. I trust the people who deal with this area when they say this is not often used correctly. Frivolous T3-tagging can be a pain in the neck, as the people involved with the template would need to stop what they're doing and wait for a week until the CSD is declined. TFD is perfectly capable of handling the rare instance of a genuinely duplicate template. – 2749:

of Clogtown" with a view to merging anything that's salvageable. I don't think I'd have a problem considering something on the extreme low-end ("Mrs Fish's 4rd grade class at Clogtown Elementary") as an A7able group, but as usual with CSDs I'm not actually sure how often any real edge-cases come up. Are there any specific examples you're thinking of? ~

250:

perhaps someone else has moved something to mainspace a while ago. Draftspace should generally self-clean itself after 6/9 months or so or so I thought. Excessive CSD:G6 could be an indicator of someone truing to skew their edit count. Allow G6 which someone has a technical need; and then scutinise for plagiarism and non-attribution.

3209:,it's certainly a pattern I see alot, but I am not sure exactly how prevalent it is. I have also had a question I have not yet asked about what to do with AFC submissions that are "rejected" rather than "declined", and I guess I'll bring it up now. They still get deleted G13 with the directions to RFUD, so I undelete them. Should I? – 1853:

days. If the "orphaned" tag is uncontested, either the "PROD only one" is weakly enforceable, or there may be a loophole between CSD and PROD. In another case, what can an admin do to a de-PRODded file currently tagged with "dfu"? Not only files, I have wondered also whether de-PRODded articles are still eligible for CSD. --

1001:) mostly seem to be concerned about whether it's worth folding them in. In 2019 two discussions basically concluded that Modules were just fancy Templates and could (in theory) be tagged with T3, but since it's a seven-day hold on deletions they might as well go to TFD. In other words, "you can do it but why bother?" 8000:. It might seem burocratic, but if they do nominate these pages at XfD then either they will find that some or all the pages are not deleted (i.e. they should not have been speedying them) or it they will always be deleted and we will have the evidence we need to craft a speedy deletion criterion that meets all the 6140:

pages, and as long as there is a decent subset of both criteria that aren't covered by the others (in this case, vandalism pages that aren't directed at a specific person, and attack pages that are expressly negative but not made with the intent of vandalism) then there is no problem with having both criteria. ~

5637:. No admin can look at 4 or more pages in one minute so if you see dozens of pages being deleted in the same minute, it's a batch delete. Again, my question about batch deletion are file deletions which happen in such large quantities, it's impossible that the files are even being scanned for appropriate tagging. 3171:

of 50 or more that have been restored. I'm mostly running into blank page drafts or drafts that were created 6 months ago and the editor hasn't edited since. Restorations are much more likely when the editor edits regularly on Knowledge and notices the G13 deletion notice. But regarding restoration I think

1814:

they think might not be) the primary topic but which they don't know the title used. This means that even if the target is renamed "X (set index article)", "X (list)" or "List of Xs named Y" people will continue to use the "X (disambiguation)" title to look for it and so the redirect will still be needed.

10672:

Going back to basics, there are two reasons for using special criteria rather than G6. One is so that there are some clearly defined conditions of when to use them is frequently occurring definable situations, rather than just the vague IAR, which is usually, but not quite always, used appropriates.

10561:

and B-I-N-G-O was his name-o. If another criterion applies (remembering, especially G4 exists if it wasn't speedily deleted the first time), then it wouldn't be necessary. If nothing applies, then not unSALTing and moving the page to the correct place is just a BATTLEGROUND mentality causing you to

10371:

The issue I have with that statement is the assumption that all uses of the plain soft redirect template in mainspace should be deleted. In some cases they should be converted to a hard redirect, a specialised soft redirect, retargeted, or moved to a different namespace rather than deleted (and it is

9504:

G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance - no more, no less. It is a catch-all, and that's a good thing, but it's also one that should never be used if there's a reasonable objection that could be made. I can totally see that "deleting clearly unhelpful GA reviews" is potentially uncontroversial in that

9178:

Quickly deleting hardcoded templates with no warning can cause problems. If that template is used in articles, then the article will have a nice redlinked template in it until someone notices. Or, if the template is used as part of a complex multi-template Frankenstein transclusion, the main template

7968:

To be honest, I don't see what else we can do. Speaking from my experience, if I were to start declining G2s or whatever on pages that at best simply wouldn't be accepted, and sometimes are just unencyclopaedic junk simply because they aren't strictly speaking test pages or whatever, the deletionists

7822:

I strongly suspect that in practice this criterion would be used to mean "badly written draft", or even "draft which isn't suitable for mainspace", which rather defeats the point of having draft space in the first place - it's intended as a place for articles which aren't up to scratch yet. The idea,

7718:

Close, but no banana. Clutter of articles that have no possibility of making it to mainspace helps hide the actual good stuff that is there. We don't have much collaborative editing in draftspace, and some skimpy CVs don't help that. It would be good to remind New Page patrollers that G3 and G10 both

7172:

If the load at MFD is getting too high, then a CSD criteria may be in order (that may be the case here). If waiting 7 days for a discussion is unacceptable, then a new CSD criteria may be in order (I'm not seeing that here, but if I'm wrong, show me). Otherwise, you'll need to give more reasons why

7087:

be speedily deleted? I haven't looked, but you should have done this before making your proposal - please can you share your results? As for frequency - how many of these redirects are there? How often do they get created? How many of them are not already speedy deletable under the existing R2 or G6?

6139:

I'll fully agree that the two can often overlap, but in what way does this actually cause a problem? Many non-notable autobiographies (A7) are also promotional (G11). Many test pages (G2) are filled with patent nonsense (G1). Speedy deletion criteria are designed to cover the most blatant problematic

5669:

I don't know how many gnomes we have watching this page, but I have a proposal/request (which I will happily take part in should there be enough interest). In the last few days I've been involved in a few discussion regarding this CSD criteria or that one, and each time I've had to search through the

5501:

So, if you have back-to-back batch deletions (of any category of CSD) by the same admin, I think it's a good guess that the pages weren't looked at individually. I know that this discussion is about G13s but my concern with batch deletions is really about files, which seem to be batch deleted at huge

2748:

I don't think the exception specifically protects them from A7, but I also suspect it's rarely going to be a good use because most faculties are plausible redirects to their parent institution. If the "University of Clogtown Knitting Department" doesn't assert significance, redirect it to "University

2676:

if asked for within 5 days, but that might just be adding bureaucracy. Likewise, I would be open to having pending T3 deletions listed prominently all in one place, with the dates that the CSD was added to them, so that interested editors can object in a timely manner. This could easily be done with

1996:

There are so many possible scenarios that it's difficult to see how a set of explicit rules can be codified. On one end of the spectrum there are copyright violations that should obviously get deleted regardless of previous prods, and on the other – speedies using "weak" criteria (like A7 or G6) when

1813:

The point is that distinguishing intentional links isn't the only reason these redirects have value - people also navigate directly to them in (at least) the two scenarios I outlined previously: People wanting a list of things with the name, and people wanting to read about something which is not (or

1798:

I'd agree too, and would suggest that they be styled like navigation pages instead of articles, but I'm in the minority there. On Knowledge, they're lists with encyclopedic content, and the arbitrariness of the line would be rendered moot by the use of redirects that match the target. If SIAs somehow

1201:

Templates on CSS/JS pages do populate the categories, but don't have any visual appearance on the script page of course. For sanitized-css (the contentmodel used for TemplateStyles), the template will need to be commented out (otherwise the page can't be saved due to the resulting syntax error). JSON

1153:

If it's practical, can you make this work on .css, .js, and other "code" pages in user-space? If I want to delete the page history of my .css page, there's no easy way to slap a speedy-deletion template on it right now. For that matter, it would be nice if .css and .js pages had a "doc" option so I

1064:

hierarchy with the caveat that the page should not have any significant history of being outside that user's sandbox area. Otherwise, I could take any arbitrary module, move it to my "user sandbox", change the content so it looks like it's not worth keeping, and tag it for speedy deletion. For that

266:

The rule of G6 is: If any reasonable person would raise an objection that isn't just a mere misunderstanding, it's not a G6. If you anticipate a misunderstanding, consider pre-emptively clarifying things in the deletion log. To use a made-up example, if you are deleting the mis-spelled redirect of

172:

does apply to draft namespace as well and should be able to handle those redirects that are created from moves of recently created pages. For other redirects, the footnote in R3 does indeed point to G6 for obviously erroneous redirects. The reason R3 excludes other redirects that stem from page moves

10502:

apply to creation of a correctly titled and otherwise non-problematic draft when its manspace equivalent is salted: the editor could defer the mainspace unsalt request for after the draft is complete. I believe this comes up frequently enough, and is clear-cut enough, that a new speedy criterion is

8448:

I've been considering making this myself and the main reason why I haven't started an RfC is that I wanted some admin who works in the area on board. If a criteria gets denied 80-90% of the time (which seems reasonable from my experience having the category on my watchlist) it isn't a good criteria.

8166:

If you think that "unencyclopaedic junk" should be speedily deleted and believe that a large number of administrators agree with you then there will be no problem at all in getting conensus to add it as a speedy deletion criterion. However, if you don't think that you will get consensus then perhaps

8117:

over it too, where a bunch of editors agreed it should have been speedied regardless of whether it actually met the criteria or not. Getting back to the point though, unless we have such a criterion, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see IAR or whatever being used to speedy unencyclopaedic junk that

7429:

I have seen some pages live for years being edited once every 5 months (sometimes more often!) without being submitted which have no hope ever of being main spaced. MFD remains an important method of removal, if one prefers not to involve an admin to remove the NOTHERE editor instead for some reason

7414:

You know, that actually is a pretty stellar idea (keeping drafts out of MFD); almost all of the drafts that get brought there are TE resubmissions and/or things that get closed as "who cares, let G13 handle it" (or "G13 will take it but why not since we're here"). The former is really the only major

7220:

I would absolutely use A7 in this sort of circumstance. If the article/draft doesn't make any viable claim about why that person's prediction is notable, that would seem to fit perfectly in the A7 criteria. If an admin balks at applying it in the draft namespace, you might need to start a discussion

6075:

While, I admit, fileprod functions too simply like prod, taking a deprodded file to FFD is easier, especially when communication is not required. On the other hand, dragging a dfu- tagged file to FFD wasn't easy as it requires an uploader to contact the person who placed the dfu tag. And waiting for

6044:

I tried using "dfu" once for concerns that would been resolved without deletion. However, the file got eventually deleted, anyways, so I had the file undeleted per REFUND. Since then, I have either rarely or never used dfu for non-deletion concerns. Furthermore, "dfu" is still part of CSD, isn't it?

5732:

s creeping in these past years to say why the specific text is the way it is on a few PAGs, which I think is generally more maintainable if one intends to be able to easily retrieve the rationale for the current page. I haven't decided if it's a good or bad creep in general, and I don't specifically

5572:

My impression is that there are a very small number of admins who regularly do batch deletions (in the sense of deleting everything in a CSD category at once without checking individual items, or deleting pages one by one at high rates (around one per second) that don't suggest checking). One of the

5497:

and seeing the speed of deletion done by different admins. As far as I know, that is the only way you can tell a deletion was done manually or through batch, is by checking the timeline of the deletion log. With batch deletion, as you know, you'll have a dozen or more page deletion done at the exact

3170:

As for stale drafts, I moved to working on this area of Knowledge just this past week and I think very few editors ask for restoration (and it seems like I've deleted hundreds of stale drafts in just one week, man, there are so many of them). But when I look at my deletion log, it's only about 1 out

3011:

Once I accidentally (re)created a page which I thought was salted indefinitely (it was salted just for a week). Immediately after the accidental creation, I moved it to my userspace while suppresing the redirect. That was basically G6 deletion. I think many pagemovers already perform G6 from time to

2946:

Fair point, and while to be completely honest it's been long enough since I've received the mop that I'm not entirely sure what I would do (as a non-admin); I suspect either IRC, AN, or a quick pageswap followed by a G10 would be high on my list of actions taken. Basically, I don't think G6 would be

2709:

that allowed the template to display the sections for only the three German Emperors which was not possible in the main template. If this went through TfD this functionality would almost definitely been added to the main template rather than losing a potentially useful feature. That being said there

1799:"need" a redirect that indicates that the incoming wikilink is intentional (even though they are valid wikilink targets, just like any other article), then the "X (set index article)" or "X (list)" wording would solve that. Or they can be better titled as "List of Xs named Y" rather than "Y (X)". -- 1575:

I recognize that such external links are frequently generated by various forum software that doesn't recognize certain punctuation as being a normal part of an URL, but I didn't think that was relevant - where the problem really is just an omission of a closing parenthesis, the reader should be able

1019:

No immediate objections to that, but the comment makes me wonder whether the U set of criteria should also apply to modules in the Module:Sandbox/your userid/ hierarchy since (from my limited understanding) that's treated as a user sandbox space? While a U3 eligible page would be pretty unlikely (if

9984:

Say A is a redirect to B, and C is an alternative spelling of A. C is redirected to B to avoid the double redirect to A. If A is deleted via an RfD discussion, I expect that C should fall under G8 as a redirect that's supposed to point to deleted page A, even if it wasn't listed in the RfD. Is this

9791:

However, creating a separate criterion for SPI deletion of cases and/or sockpuppet categories seems unnecessary. G6 works well for cases where the deletion is uncontroversial and does not meet any other criteria. If the deletion is questioned and there is good reason for the question, then the case

7150:

As an example, there's a discussion currently ongoing at MFD to delete a draft that contains the writer's predictions for the upcoming NBA season. For items like this with no place anywhere on Knowledge, we should create a CSD criteria. Basically, what I'm proposing is U5, but for draft and article

5711:

I agree that such a list would be useful, but it would require significant manual work to create it, and more to maintain it. I can't see how it could be created except by going though manually all 76 archives of this page. Well perhaps the earliest ones could be skipped. Then onw would need to add

2989:

If a page mover gets involved then there probably won't be a need for any speedy deletion in the first place. If the end goal is to move OLDPAGE to NEWPAGE, then the redirect NEWPAGE can simply be moved to a title that will still be appropriate as a redirect, say NEW PAGE, NEWPAGE (FOO), etc. There

1852:

as opposed to File PROD. However, reading both policies, neither CSD nor PROD seems to address implementing CSD on de-PRODded pages. For instance, an orphaned non-free file is PRODded but then de-PRODded, but then the B-bot automatically tags the file as "orphaned" to be deleted for more than seven

1783:

99% of cases they don't care whether they arrive at a disambiguation page, a set index or a list, as long as the page they arrive at lists the things they are looking for (it could be they are looking for the list of things, or it could be that they are looking for a specific thing that is unlikely

1781:

I agree with Tavix. The line between what is a disambiguation page and what is a set index or a list is one that is entirely arbitrary and completely unknown to most editors, let alone the majority of our readers. Indeed set indexes as a concept independent from disambiguation pages only exist as a

1743:

similar to a disambiguation page in that it lists all items with the same name. Storm pages are categorized as a "set index article" in Knowledge, but that's just a technical phrase that non-dab editors aren't aware of that allows these disambiguation-like pages to have a bit more information (such

1092:

But as you state in your penultimate statement, that has nothing to do with the page or the criteria but with the deleting admin actually checking the history. It's the same as when someone moves a page to a new name and then puts it up for "G7". No, you cannot do that and say it's "your page", you

490:

The only cross-namespace redirs which there is general consensus should not exist are ones out of the main article space to somewhere else, I think. Any other sort would need a deletion discussion IMO, unl;ess they clearly fit one of the other CSDs which would not normally be the case. G6 is not "I

412:

applies. Knee jerk deletions are likely to confuse newcomers when they can't find their contribution history, and there is zero explained benefit. Duplicates should be fixed by redirection as a normal edit. If more is required, write a better edit summary. More generally, G6 should not apply to

9752:

To note I and other clerks have deleted IP only sockpuppet investigations under G6 in lieu of archiving the case. These IP only cases have always (from my understanding) been deleted when there are no other archived cases for this case page and where its not a deliberate sockpuppetry by the person

9193:

I'm confused. Templates have a "What links here", the person deleting already has to ensure substantial usage is converted or orphaned as appropriate (as at TfD, so likely for T3 also). But, mainly, option A (deprecate T3) means all such templates go to TfD which already has the same 7 day waiting

8282:

That does remind me of an additional point/reason to get rid of T3 - there's already a seven-day waiting period, so it's just as easy to kick it to TFD as nominate it. I'm on the fence about dropping the 7 day period and making it immediate, but even if we removed that "holding time" I would still

8151:

How is citing something that was correctly speedily deleted under existing criterion G10 (it wasn't technically an attack page, but it was unsourced and full of BLP issues, clearly within the spirit of G10) and then suppressed evidence that IAR speedy deletion is acceptable? An XfD discussion with

8132:

I can't see it because it was not just deleted but suppressed, but given it was suppressed it looks likely it falls under G10, which typically has to be more aggressively enforced (really, G10 and G12 are the only important CSDs - everything else it's only for convenience). Honestly, you can (and

6730:

OK - it didn't seem very likely that the content would be copied into mainspace by someone else only for the owner to tag it for U1, but if you've seen that happen then fair enough. I don't think "linked to from anywhere" is a suitable standard though because there are various pages which list all

6684:

That seems fair enough. U1 deletions do tend to be processed fairly quickly, because they are very easy to do, but there are quite a few of them and a bot would free up some admin time for other things. I'm not sure that merges are likely to be a problem in userspace, if user A writes something in

5582:

Adding that I can think of one way to spot G13 batch deletions. If the deletion log has clusters of G13 deletions performed at about the same time by one admin, and if that one admin has no intervening edits to the draft namespace, this would suggest that they have a 0% decline rate, which in turn

3246:

on my talk page but reevaluating the use of batch deletion on G13 drafts which, at the least, shouldn't happen without page creator notifications first, and maybe shouldn't be happening at all. I think there is a taken for granted assumption that G13 taggers are evaluating the drafts for potential

2700:

I think T3 is quite wonky as well and that the 7-day hold is weird and makes it a lot less effective, but I would definitely not want it removed. In my experience from having CAT:T3 on my watchlist is that there are a lot of dubious nominations and ones that would technically qualify as duplicates

2103:

My opinion is that a prod has no interaction with CSDs whatsoever. An article that is eligible for a CSD that was put up for prod was almost certainly done so by accident (because the editor did not realized they qualified - obviously, if you know an article falls under a CSD, that's a faster and

621:

is a bit vague, but how would one draw a line? I would expect it to at least visibly change the content of the article, but a large removal of content could be a substantial edit, as could a large addition, but how large? Adding a reference? If it contributes to verifiability, generally yes, if it

469:

I generally think that admins should have a fairly strong mop when it comes to deleting cross-namespace redirects that are likely to be of questionable utility and are potentially of negative utility. We don't have a PROD for redirects, so what is the alternative? Sinking time at RfD, perhaps MFD?

433:

Yes. If an article is merged into another, and a redirect is left that has a non-trivial edit history, and a new draft of an article that properly belongs at that name is created and approved, a G6 will be needed to clear the name for the draft to move to mainspace. But clearing the way for proper

10766:

does not to not have both covered by CSD criteria. I don't see how they can be merged without some awkward construction, like "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page, or page in requestor's userspace" which means pretty much the same as the existing, more logical, separate

10654:

There is also a more general disagreement among the AfC reviewers--some us us, including myself, wan tto get rid of the really hopeless stuff as soon as possible, to decreae the workload and apparent backlog--others would rather just rely of the 6 month deletion at G13. It has a connection with a

8244:

is rarely overrun with nominations so an extra dozen nominations a week isn't the end of the world for the handful of actually-duplicated-but-not-redirectable cases. This isn't necessarily a formal proposal, as I'm mainly curious to see what others' have to say about the matter, though if there's

6715:

Since this does present the occasional copyright problem, a bot must take the most cautious approach. Your scenario is absolutely correct; that presents no copyright issue. The attribution problem arises when the content (that meets threshold of originality) is taken and used by a different user.

1715:

mentions "or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).". Set index articles and lists are Knowledge articles, and serve as much disambiguation-like function as any other Knowledge article with wikilinks. They are intentionally not disambiguation-like

9856:

If there are any reasonable objections that a page meets a CSD criterion then by definition it does not and cannot, no RfC needed. If there is a desire that these SPI pages be speedily deleted then there needs to be a specific criterion added to allow that as they do not meet any of the existing

9785:

Also I more often delete empty sockpuppet categories under G6 too. The idea for both is that they both are uncontroversial actions. For the deleting of case pages, if it meets another criteria (like due to G5, G10 etc.) I will delete under that criteria instead. Sockpuppet categories are deleted

8073:

Expanding on this a bit, the old discussions are all variations of "I think it should be allowed" or "but it happens" without even attempts at rebutting the explanation I and others give every time for why it cannot be compatible with policy, or why not ignoring policy in this way is desirable -

7196:

I wouldn't say MfD is overloaded (though to be fair I'm not a regular participant there so I wouldn't know for sure), but in the event something is obviously going to be deleted, there's not really any use in keeping it up for seven days when the results are obvious even before tagging. What I'm

249:

In my opinion G6's in draftspace should be pretty rare. I think its generally ill advise when there two independent or related draft articles on the same topic due to attribution requirements. Redirects are generally okay but probably best left to die naturally unless a specific need arises or

189:

In the cases of recently created drafts that duplicate the topic of an existing draft, (and I intentionally echo the language of criterion A10), these seem to me to be obvious speedies: why would he draft space be more retentive that the article space? In the case where the drafts have the same

9558:

Roy, I have long wondered whether that is the case. Bogus SPI and LTA cases disappear, and only weird cases come to MfD, nominated by non-SPI people. I think these deletions are decidely contrary to the wording, spirit and intention of G6. These deletions are being used to for tidying, quiet

9319:

Expanding on my opinion above: I don't do a lot of T3 tagging, but when I do, it is almost always because some new editor has (a) created a direct copy-paste of a template and called it "Citation needed JohnnyFive" or (b) attempted to create a template whose function already exists because they

7875:

for the moment. It may be possible to devise a criterion in this area – I don't know, but no actionable proposal has been yet presented. Because of the extraordinary conservatism any new criterion proposal is approached with (for good reason), and the exacting nature of meeting the standards of

7393:

The whole point of draft space is to allow editors to develop their articles in peace without over enthusiastic editors or admins tagging or deleting their drafts. There are too many examples of bad A7 deletions already without adding drafts where we first told editors they can take their time.

7374:

The phrase "no encyclopedic value" is not a viable criterion, as its interpretation is completely subjective. CSD criteria must be precise. Expanding A7 to garage band kind of stuff sitting in draft space is a possibility. One could also consider creating a CSD criterion, probably for mainspace

7078:

what you are proposing is a criteria to speedy-delete cross-namespace redirects to draftspace from any other namespace. That's certainly objective, no problem there. As originally proposed it's mostly nonredundant (with the exception of redirects from the main namespace and redirects created by

5455:

Batch deletions say absolutely nothing about the admin making the deletion, only that they have done a batch deletion. I regularly batch-delete post-TFD G6s and G13s, but only to save myself the time and hassle of actually clicking "delete" on every single page. The last time I G13'd a group of

3227:

The repeat refunders are not much of a problem. When they ask for a repeat refund without intervening improvement, then we ask them a question to ask what they are going to do. If any action is proposed then we can refund, and if not the request is ignored. Individual admins do not have to do a

3052:

give them another one at 6 months when it's actually tagged. This way, users who don't intend to work on their drafts won't get drawn back just to REFUND them, but users who do intend to work on them will still have both a reminder useful to them, and the ability to get it back if they actually

9509:

uncontroversial outside of people demanding process for process's sake, then I wouldn't have any particular objection to it. This is probably an example of a poor use of it: it was a low-quality GA review, but well above the threshold of "unambiguously unhelpful". :Ultimately, I'm not seeing a

6559:

My impression has been that G7 tends to be seen as an "easy" criterion, and so pages tend to get deleted very quickly, presumably without the sort of checks you would expect to see for more "serious" criteria, like G4 or G11. In these circumstances, a carefully designed bot will actually be an

5505:

I posted a note at the AFC WikiProject talk page about G13 pages and categories so that interested parties would be able to quickly see drafts that were coming up on their 6 month mark if they saw potential in a particular draft and wanted to extend its life. There are a few editors/admins who

3266:

I realize that there are technical issues to be resolved in order to accomplish this, but we really should be notifying all page watchers and not just the author. If an abandoned draft has been adopted by someone else, they won’t get any notifications at all until the G13 tag shows up in their

6454:

I'm keeping this simple for now. There are no doubt other "obvious" cases of db-user and db-author that should be "routine tasks that any user can do without an administrator's help." That's what admin-bots are for, to do the "no brainer" tasks so admins can do the things that require human

3134:

G13 was motivated by the many tens of thousands of unwatched drafts that included copyright and BLP violations. Even though the fraction was very small, it was not feasible to check them all, and it was decided it was better to have them all slow-delete out of caution. To avoid damage due to

879:

I would agree that a "substantial" change must involve some displayed semantic change in content. A mere change in form (copyediting, and the other things mentioned by Beetstra above) would not be substantial, much less a cosmetic change that has no effect on the rendered article would not be

10155:. Alternatively, if consensus is that some but not all criteria do/should apply, the sentence "These criteria do not apply to soft redirects unless explicitly noted." would be added instead, with "including soft redirects" after "this applies to redirects" in the relevant criterion/criteria. 9353:

That's exactly what I'm seeing as well. Scenario (a) is best handled by G criteria, while scenario (b) would be best resolved at TfD. My only concern would be if this added to the caseload at TfD to the detriment of that board, but the dearth of T3 usage indicates that would not be the case.

8167:

that's a clue that there isn't actually a consensus it should be speedily deleted. If you know of an admin who is speedily deleting things there is consensus should not be speedily deleted then please remind them that this was a large part of the reason why RHaworth was desysopped by arbcom.

634:

I have always applied it as 'no addition of content', excluding typo fixing, categorisations, fact-tagging, bot-edits, addition of maintenance templates, infobox inclusions (where all info is taken from the article), moving parts around (copy-edit), spelling/grammar corrections, wikilinking,

5640:

I've noticed that the CSD Spam G7 & No significance A7 categories are very slow to be emptied and I think you've right about the regular patrolling admins avoiding deleting pages where page creators might protest. I think the pages still end up getting deleted but not as quickly as less

10588:, that seems to be overlooked unilaterally by admins annoyed by draftspace recreations. As in mainspace, SALTing too easily has the side effect of re-creations under an variant title, which is a bigger problem. Wait for repeated recreations be multiple accounts before resorting to SALT. — 3450:

To pick up the thread about batch deletions for G13, it has come to my attention that one or more admins are doing batch deletions under G13. This concerns me because in the discussion about extending G13 to non-AFC drafts (including drafts that have never been submitted for AFC review for

7890:

The load at MfD is actually quite reasonable compared to the past and in general. Furthermore, whether or not something has "encyclopedic value" is vague and certainly not something uncontroversial (i.e. clear-cut). Drafting should be given a wide amount of leeway and applying this to the

7823:

I presume, is that drafts which aren't at least an attempt to write an encyclopedia article should be speedily deleted. There is a fine line between these pages and very poor drafts which are an attempt at writing an encyclopedia article, and in practice this line is likely to be ignored.

1784:

to be the primary topic but they don't know the article title for). This all means that the majority of redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" pointing to set indexes or lists should not be deleted, let alone speedily deleted and so I very strongly oppose removing the exemption from G14.

357:

In my view, the normal response to any such more-or-less duplicate draft should be redirection not deletion, whether by speedy or by MfD. I routinely opt for "keep but redirect" at MfD for such drafts, and would probably decline a G6 for such cases. There are several reasons for this:

1926:

I'm not exactly an expert on files, but I would say all of those are still valid even after a deprod. My general feeling is that, because PRODs can be removed for bad reasons or no reason at all, a deprod can't be used to veto a legitimate reason for deletion. This include speedies.

7564:, I've noticed that you are often fairly particular about things like this. The attention to detail/standards is useful in some circumstances, but for circumstances like this, I don't really see the value in pointing it out. If it really bothers you, section headings are listed as a 5596:

I've seen an admin delete it again a few hours later, even though it wasn't tagged and didn't qualify (because I edited it when I restored it the first time). The only way I can explain this is if the deleting admin was doing a batch deletion based on a report which was out of date.

3417:

Is there any way to have these removed as part of the script for accepting AFC articles? (I don't know how that is done as a technical matter, but Wikiproject templates get added to the talk page, and the AFC template is removed from the draft page as a part of the accept process.)

1324:

Don't most pages these days transclude themselves for one reason or another? And for modules in particular, most of them will anyway because their doc page will contain an example of their usage. And as for complexity, is that a big deal given that most CSD's are done with Twinkle?

8074:

either there is something that should be speedy deletable according to policy but isn't (in which case policy should change, but can't because there is no evidence it needs to) or things are being speedy deleted that should not be (one of the most harmful things an admin can do).

5674:

as the first hit), but it got me thinking that we should have some sort of listing of "discussions about CSD criteria X", so that if (for example) you wanted to talk about why A7 doesn't count for books, you would at the very least have a list of discussions that pertained to A7.

8240:. Some are mistakes about what T3 represents (I most recently declined the T3s of a /sandbox and /testcases), others are reasonable alternate names that could easily be converted to redirects (different dash types, alternate caps, etc), a small number being improper copy/pastes. 880:

substantial. However, a talk-page not or even an HTML comment to the effect 'I take full responsibility for this article" by an editor in good standing who is not a puppet of the sock should probably stop a G5. I agree with those who question why this went right to a formal RfC.

8449:

TFD is a suitable replacement and I see no significant inconvenience caused by removing it. In fact most TFD regulars seem to prefer not to since theres a decent likelihood that it will be denied and taken to TFD anyway. I think it would be simpler just removing the criteria. --

2667:

If a template is a substantial duplicate, it MAY be because someone is doing some testing or other template re-organization. In those cases, an "almost zero notice" deletion would be disruptive. In the rest of the cases, which admittedly is a majority if not a vast majority,

7611:

I agree with Redrose. Words matter, and the correct use of words is correct. This especially applies on this WP:CSD policy page, where everything is supposed to be objective. It is not good enough for it to able to be understood, it has to be impossible to misunderstand.

647:' as non-substantial). In case I doubt I will tag only and have a second pair of eyes on it. Note that I have deleted pages that have sometimes up to 10-15 'maintenance' edits after the creation by the sock under G5, as there were no edits that actually changed content. -- 10347:). Such unclarified wording would almost implicitly condone the presence of the plain template in the mainspace. The only way to remedy this particular case simply and without unintended consequences would be to add the special namespace to the list of namespace exemptions. 2388:

This is just clarifying some common-sense situations that the previous text seemed to prohibit, namely, editors reverting db- tags they mistakenly placed on pages they authored and editors changing their minds after placing a db-author or db-user tag on a page they created.

7296:

As for people hopelessly modifying some page in a NOTHERE fashion that doesn't meet that, dealing with the editor is usually the quickest way to take care of the problem. Block the editor from the page or entirely. Sometimes summary deletion isn't the best tool in the box.

450:

I don't think that's right. G6 for page moves is used for deleting recently auto-made trailing redirects, and temporary third pages for title swaps. If the redirect has a non-trivial page history, it should be moved to a disambiguated title and redirected, not deleted.

9373:

I think the most I've ever seen in one go is about 15 in the category, but they weren't all nominated in the same day (and I would say there are usually well less than half that in a normal week). An average of 1-2 extra TFD nominations per day isn't the end of the world.

9623:

Random MfDs are not the problem or the point. The problem is Speedy Deletion "per G6" for cases where WP:CSD is lacking a line, and for this setting precedent for others to delete broadly "per G6". I think G6 should never be used for a page with a non-trivial history.

1532:

Is R3 intended to cover cases where a parenthetical disambiguation qualifier is missing its closing parenthesis? If so, is the (vague) recency requirement waived as long as the redirect has no incoming links? Otherwise, has the vagueness already been discussed somewhere?

3459:

project, showing that deleting admins could be (but in practice are not) a guard against bad deletions of content under G13. I'm not sure if these G13 deletions were batch deletions or not. I'm not sure if other speedy deletions are typically handled en masse by admins.

1202:

is the only content model which currently is impossible to tag, because once again the page can't be saved with a tag due to the syntax error and unlike sanitized-css, no forms of comments are allowed in JSON, and unlike modules there are no documentation pages also.

1113:

so that the template and categorization only happen on the page where you want them to? Also, template editors have the option of changing the page's content model and then applying a CSD tag like on any other wikitext page. Do you think that's worth mentioning too?

133:

I've noticed several editors routinely nominating such pages for deletion. The admin response is all over the place, with some choosing to delete and others choosing to decline. Is it ever appropriate to apply G6 (or any speedy criterion) in any of the above cases?

10732:

Apparently, U1 is like G7 because user subpages and userpages are mostly created by it's current user, and basically, it's like when you create your own user page or your own user subpage and then request a deletion, this would be like G7. G7 deletion reason reads

10862:

If you want to compile a PEREN style list then please go ahead. I doubt it will reduce the number of proposals (given how few people seem to pay attention to the existing big yellow box) but it will be a useful list to point people to after the proposal is made.

5573:

admins who was fond of that got desysopped last year. What I see nowadays is batch deletions for "easy" CSDs (i.e. ones that are perceived as being at a low risk of people complaining afterwards), that's G6, G7, G8, G13, and I assume some of the file criteria. –

2789: 204:

By R3's footnote, G6 is only for redirects created as a result of erroneous page moves. I don't see how the resulting redirect in this situation would be G6-eligible. Redirecting it or leaving the page as-is for an eventual G13 deletion are the options we have.

3445: 8297:

I mean, it's just a weak template-PROD today. It has the restrictions on it which make it not-speedy but which also make it not-PRODy. Let's drop the restrictions and let anyone tag anything with T3 if we don't do away with it. (And see if the world breaks.)

7151:

namespaces. They could even be bundled together, eliminating U5 and creating G15. I don't believe A7, A9, or A11 apply in this scenario (or, at the very least, I wouldn't tag an article like the above-mentioned draft with any of those 3 criteria. Thoughts?

6190:

The "non-redundant" rule doesn't mean zero overlap. It means that each rule covers cases not covered by any other. If (in the absence of an already-existing article) someone had written a slightly-exaggerated article on the controversial Israeli politician

5506:

regularly pull out aging drafts to extend their time. I think those who work in the AfC area are the best judges of potential. If this is also a discussion about nonAfC drafts getting tagged G13 & deleted, then this is a discussion that should involve

2123:), but even then it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. And who deprodded matters - while the creator of an article can deprod it for any reason, their opinion that they are not committing vandalism or adding hoaxes obviously carries no weight for 9621: 1707: 6386:

Apparently, there are cases where a user will say up-front that the content has been put in the main encyclopedia, and it turns out, it was put in by another editor, making it necessary to preserve attribution. Even though the particular case mentioned

6658:

It goes without saying that the bot should do all the same checks a human would do, or maybe a "superset" of those checks if that makes coding easier. For example "if linked to from anywhere, leave it for a human" would be a much easier check to do.

2026:

Errmmm.. so you're suggesting that it's OK for a previously deprodded article to be summarily deleted per G15 or whatever, but that an editor who instead opts for the wider-participation one-week-long process should be dragged to ANI and sanctioned? –

224: 375:

G6 should not be needed unless such a redir is obstructing a move, or perhaps if an editor is tendentiously reverting the redir to a competing draft without discussion. And then I think an MfD would be better than a G6, or perhaps protection of the

2303:

First step (regardless of REFUND or DRV) is always to contact the deleting admin. Personally I see nothing to indicate that a REFUND back to the template space is appropriate, but REFUND can also be used for userfication which would be acceptable.

1034:

I think the pertinent statement is more about putting the nomination on the documentation subpage; at the moment U, G, and T all qualify for use, which is pretty much all of the relevant criteria (since obviously A/R/F/C/P are namespace-specific).

361:

If the draft was created in good faith, the redirect lets the editor who created it know where the content is and where any new work should be done in an easy and natural way, harder to get wrong than needing to read and understand a deletion log

2108:

take the deprod into consideration, but for everything other than the prod process itself, a deprod carries no formal weight. The only exception might be when the prod mentioned a rationale that actually fell under CSD, and the deprodding editor

6161:

Doesn't seem like the overlap is much of a problem. Not all vandalism is attack pages, and some attack pages aren't pure vandalism. There's no need to combine these, as the Venn diagram combining these two has plenty of non-overlapping space.

5938:- no admin can be expected to do that. It is up to the person adding the image to the article to justify why it should be used in that article, and that is one of the primary purposes of the FUR. If they cannot justify it, it does not belong. -- 1950:

Wouldn't any criterion using the seven-day deletion period (like "dfu" and "orphaned non-free") conflict with PROD if de-PRODded files are still eligible for those criteria? Is this conflict (or some sort of loophole?) something to worry about?

8685:

per Jonesey. T3 doesn't seem used all that frequentl,y and TFD can probably handle these nominations better and faster (through speedy keep NAC's). The hold period is as long as a TFD anyway so it's not like the current criterion buys us much.

7995:

deletion not authorised by CSD or consensus (almost always XfD or Prod) is, by definition, controversial. IAR is only to be used for actions that will uncontroversially improve the encyclopaedia, so cannot be used for speedy deletion. See also

6216: 10790:

This has been discussed and rejected before. While in some circumstances there is overlap there are far more cases where there is not - only when one criterion is identical to or (almost) wholly a subset of another is duplication problematic.

10252:

I have queried the R2 deletion on Fastily's talk page (given the time of day they normally contribute to Knowledge it is likely they have not yet seen the message) as the discussion clearly showed a consensus against speedy deletion under R2.

8227: 7004:

namespace to draft should be deleted, as user sandboxes are regularly moved to draftspace as part of the AfC process. But also, redirects in other namespaces really aren't a problem – the point of R2 is to keep this stuff out of mainspace. –

3047:

I have an idea for how to break this cycle, without making it harder for legitimate users to get drafts they actually work on undeleted: give the author a talk page message at 5 months telling them they have 1 month remaining, and crucially,

5682:

the topic of that discussion (unless there's a big interest in that), just a place to start when making sure you're referring to the right rationale (or just refreshing your memory). As far as format goes, I figured it could be set up like

8667:

is fine with me, as long as there is a TFD criterion that clearly states that a template that is a substantial duplication of, or a hardcoded instance of, another template should be deleted (or redirected, if it has a reasonable name). –

635:

disambiguations, additions of 'short description', stub-tagging, and format fixes(, etc. etc). I really expect that there is at least a good part of a sentence of new facts being added (so I still regard something like 'she was born in

7079:

accidental moves) but that's not uncontestable though - moves of userspace drafts are just one example of something that could be deleted but should not be (you could exclude that, but you need to define your exception objectively). Is

6685:

their sandbox, copies it to a mainspace page and then tags the sandbox for deletion under U1 then the edit history of the sandbox doesn't need to be kept for attribution reasons because the content is attributed to user A in mainspace.

6331:

Or these multiple authors can first use the Template Talk page to raise and then each affirm that deletion is desirable, which would provide a signed trail (and space for anyone to dissent) before the first author places the G7 notice?

1758:, which is useful to prevent linkrot, etc. I disagree with the claim that they serve as much disambiguation-like function as any other Knowledge article with wikilinks. There are cases, such as the one above, where the index or list is 5498:

same minute, if they are spread out over time, then you can see that an admin looked at each one individually. I didn't take into account admins like Primefac who would look at each page and then later use batch delete to delete them.

2820:

A "page mover" verifies the db-g6 is reasonable, moves it to a temporary location e.g. NEWPAGE-ToBeDeleted, updates the rationale of the db-g6, then moves OLDPAGE to NEWPAGE, leaving a redirect or not depending on the circumstances.

9606: 9418:

That we end up with no CSD for templates is *not* strange, it just means the general criteria covers them well enough. And we do not have criteria for help: nor wp: though those are kind of different not writen for readers but for

5612:

I think it's safe to conclude that the level of inspection of tagged pages differs greatly among admins and probably changes over time and also depends on the nature of the deletion. Some admins are very careful, others, less so.

2354: 5044: 986: 5167: 105: 10518:

I would be opposed to it being a G criteria but could see it, perhaps, as an A criteria, in other words only in article space. One effective way to convince an administrator to unsalt would be to have a promising draft. Best,

8722:

per nom. Although as Jonesey95 states above, this is in no way an indication that template duplication is okay—merging redundant templates should remain one of the top priorities for those of us working in the template space.

6195:, it could easily be a G10, but wouldn't be a G3. If someone creates a vandalism page which isn't an attack page, it would be a G3 but not a G10. Overlapping criteria already exist of G11/G12, G11/A7, G1/G2/G3, A1/A3/A7, etc. 5712:

to the list each thread that significantly discussed a given criterion. That requires human input. Then every new archive page would need to be scanned and the appropriate links added to the list page.s it worth the effort?

6012:

I've seen DFU, or perhaps a similarly-worded custom deletion template, used this way several times. I see it most with things like book/album/media cover art and corporate logos used properly on the page about the item but

3335:

That's easy enough to fix as well, just have the bot's message be namespace-sensitive, so if the namespace is something other than "Draft talk:" or "User talk:" it displays a different message entirely, maybe something like

590:

Unless I'm mistaken, substantial edits means additions of content or changes in content. More than copy editing, minor edits, and application of maintenance tags, etc.. A null edit as described is certainly not substantial.

7103: 1393:

in my opinion, especially since the code you added has nothing to do with documentation. As I said above, there was no actual problem with putting CSD tags on the doc page, other than admins occasionally acting carelessly.

10406:

deletion per a 10-year old discussion, setting aside that capitalization differences make quite a difference in regard to redirection, of something that is clearly controversial would not have been a good idea either; the

2860: 8152:

three total comments, including nominator and closer, is also not evidence that "a bunch of people" agree. Ultimately the point is that nowhere in any of the disucssions has anyone refuted the basic nature of the issue:

1766:

not serving as a tool to distinguish multiple things with the same name. However, where there may be gray area, I think it is best to have it addressed at RfD so I would not be in favor of having this exception removed.

5126: 2837:

It makes the page log and deletion log history messier vs. a straight-up "delete and move." Since I'm not an administrator I don't know how "messy" this makes things, so this may be a non-issue or it may be a serious

1725: 9918: 9912: 9908: 9901: 9897: 8023: 7144: 6109:; clarifying that this observation doesn't apply to cases where G14 is for redirects – this is usually done as part of clean-up operations, and both the tagger and the creator are likely to be experienced editors). – 6258:

I'm not picky about the exact text, but you get the idea: G7 should be usable for "db-authors" plural. Perhaps a new "db-authors" template could be written to put the message to the administrator in automatically.

2969:), and I would definitely argue that it makes cleaning up things more difficult. If you're moving something away from a "vandal name" (again, discussed above) that move would now need to be removed (likely RD2) from 371:

R3 applies only to "typos" or in general errors of naming. "John Smith (Printer)"is not an error for "John Smith (Publisher)", particularly if the subject was both. "Jane Roe (Singing)" is not an error for "Jane Roe

9979: 9712: 9539: 3469: 3741: 10033:

to redirect there, and I don't think anyone would argue that point, but I think it would be improper to do so for X. Because of this I don't think we should be pigeon-holing ourselves into problematic scenarios.

7529: 7166: 6277: 5450: 2414: 1499:

And I'd revert. There's absolutely no problem with the current system of nominating modules for deletion, and this no need for any of this. (and I'm responsible for a large fraction of module nominations at TfD)

145: 9792:

request should be restored as its not controversial. Such a criteria would still be used, but I just think as long as G6 can cover the cases where no other criteria apply it should be fine without an extra one.

8043: 7430:(perhaps convincing some admin to do something about that editor or not knowing where to go for that is difficult or a crapshoot, whereas MFD guarantees the content is assessed for what it is, in such cases). -- 7239: 7120: 6449:

Short waiting period (1 hour?) to allow for self-reverts ("oops, I didn't mean to do that") or 3rd-party reverts (mentors, education project coaches, or just someone who wants to force this to be looked at by a

2082:

Also in practice, despite what they said, I don't think anyone is likely to actually be sanctioned for a single bad PROD, only if they continue to do it repeatedly after being reminded that it's against policy.

1093:

moved it and therefore (unless it's an R-eligible move) the redirect needs to stay. I've seen just about every CSD criteria manhandled at some point or another, but that doesn't invalidate its potential usage.

6123:

Has anyone wondered that these criteria overlap so much? A lot of vandalism is insults, which can be "Attack pages", while attack pages can be made to deface the encyclopedia, henceforth it being "vandalism".

5747:

I guess if it were set up like RSP, where only policy-changing discussions were linked, that would be a good reference. On the other hand, it might save folks having to search for perennial proposals, like at

4131:

Four general references and four additional references in footnotes, including entries specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture and Dictionary of Korean Language and Literature

2569: 739:

For example the Template:Technical Non redirect page, it has been edited by people while changing content, but nominated for G5 after, although this should be nominated for redundancy and G3. Plus, CSD should

8027: 4357: 1065:

matter, ALL module speedy-deletions should have their "move history" and "edit history" checked to make sure the requesting editor isn't trying to "game" the system. Note that normal editors can move modules

9994: 9786:

early because they are only filled when they have tagged userpages. If the tags have been removed / changed such that the category is empty it is very unlikely that the category will be re-filled with socks.

3247:

which might not be happening. But that is a discussion that requires the participation of more admins and editors who tag & delete CSD pages and patrol CSD categories. It might be an overdue discussion.

6644:, etc. – or possibly, since I'm sure I've missed other relevant templates, hand made notes of attribution, and more I cannot think of, not acting if the target page is linked from the main talk namespace.-- 3996: 8572:

would accomplish exactly the same thing as tagging T3 (and would catch any that wouldn't be eligible for the G-speedies). So there are two options (aside from the status quo) that I would like to propose:

6907:

that can be "considered and ignored" by editors and administrators without causing someone to scream "you aren't allowed to delete the page because CSD says such and so," I went ahead and made the changes

5208: 7444:

Somehow I doubt that this is actually happening often enough to warrant the creation of a new speedy deletion criterion. There are other ways to handle the few editors knowingly gaming the rules. Regards

6133: 9806:

G6 should not be used to delete others’ non-trivial contributions. It is an abuse of G6. SPI doing it has provided poor example for admins in other areas where they too take a liberal interpretation.

5341:. I think that the topic is notable, based on a google search, but please link the references to the proper sections of the article. Feel free to resubmit after these changes have been made. Thank you. 9088:– if a template is obviously redundant, redirecting can be done without any discussion. If it's less obvious, or if leaving a redirect appears undesirable, it needs discussion and should go to TFD. – 10498:

is salted. My feeling is, if the creator cannot (or will not) convince an administrator to unsalt the correctly titled page, the wrongly titled one should be subject to speedy deletion. This would

2702: 1666: 6118: 5728:

This kind of idea comes up every once in a while on various guideline and policy pages (the MOS even had a near-fork of the MOS for just such an index; not sure if it still exists). I have noticed

1303:

Is this really a good idea? It appears to me to make the process more complicated, in addition to having the unintended consequences of causing every page in module namespace to transclude itself.

10512: 10048:

I doubt a G8 tag is likely to be honoured, even in the more obvious cases. That's why when sending a redirect to RfD, it's best practice to also include in the nomination any derived redirects. –

9735:

implies that these deletions have consensus in practice, and so to make WP:CSD catch up with practice, "Checkuser or SPI clerk maintenance of SPI subpages should be assigned its own CSD criterion.

9268:

CSD should be frequently used. This one is not. I have never tagged something as T3 nor seen a T3 deletion, let alone deleted something for T3. We should reduce our bureaucracy whenever possible.

1375:

How is this any worse than putting the tag on a different page though? Either way, it's a nonstandard way of doing speedy deletion. (By the way, I like your clever usage of package.loaded in it.)

6249:{{db|1=db-g7 All authors agree to deletion. '''Administrators must verify all authors have signed this request before deleting. Remove this template if it is incomplete after 1 week.''' ~~~~]}} 5493:

No, I do not know how the batch deletions are done by every admin. It's my gut feeling that not all admins take the same care that Primefac does. This point of view is based solely on looking at

1732: 9904:, of which each has its shortcomings. The first can't be found by searching for “X1” or “X2”, and the second one has no mention of the common topic, the meaning of “X”. My suggestion therefore: 365:

If the draft was created in an attempt to game the system, the redirect leaves it obvious to anyone checking the record of the user what happened, while a log entry might more easily be missed.

10850: 10813: 5502:

quantities. Regarding G13s, I think this is really a discussion that should probably also involve G13 page taggers as well since I think many admins rely on them to only tag appropriate pages.

1128:

Actually, thinking about this some more, I think I have an even better idea, that will allow CSD tagging straight from modules, without needing to change their content model (it will leverage

9877:

Should there be a placeholder section with explanatory text that explains that all template (T) criteria have been deprecated, similar to what we already have for exceptional (X) criteria? --

9832:

to MfD because I felt it wasn't an obvious G6. Given the number of conflicting opinions above, I think there should be an RfC to determine whether such pages are actually eligible for G6. -

9430: 10164: 6061:

I would not be in favour of removing dfu or associated tags in favour of fileprod. Fair use rationales are important and just clicking Undo and leaving the mess in place is not appropriate.

1682:

Is there a bright-line quantitative rule for R3's recency requirement, or does it require checking other things such as the creating user's contributions in combination with common sense? --

3099:

An interesting idea. While disabling the user notification for the bot would be trivial, force-disabling the "notify the page creator" option on Twinkle would be slightly more problematic.

4417: 1882:

I guess it would depend on the criterion, but generally yes. Copyvios, for example. G5 too, especially if the creator was a sock of a banned user that was detected only after the deprod.

1662: 526:

Most of these will be eventually G13/G8-deleted (like many other drafts), or can be deleted after mainspacing the draft. Speeding up these deletions seems busywork without much benefit. —

5749: 1966:

When I returned from my hiatus, I declined a couple of speedies that had been ProDed based on the assumption that they needed AfD and sent them to AfD where the consensus was that I was

673:, can you point to a specific time you believe G5 was applied incorrectly that this RfC would address? Otherwise, this is just hypothesizing about a situation that I don't think exists. 8968:- If it is kept, I do not think the 7-day holding period should be removed because it allows for appropriate review. Neutral regarding whether or not this should be kept or deprecated. 2925: 1354:

The only actual problem presented with adding the deletion tag to the doc page is that some admins are careless, which should not be worked around by the addition of more module creep.

10666: 2491:

par excellence. Surely editors should have the minimum of sense required here? Or do we really have people placing tags by mistake and then not daring to correct their error? Pings to

1187:

commented out, but it still "transcluded" (or at least, showed up in the category). That was a few years ago though, so they might have changed how those page classes handle the code.

3267:

watchlist (and these tend to get deleted rather quickly). If the point is to get someone with an interest in the draft to take action on it, the page watchers are the place to start.

994: 9228:

doesn't require anyone to fix transclusions before deleting the template. Additionally, I don't think that we need to waste editors' time voting on uncontroversial deletions at TfD.

2998:– there's a script that performs these steps at a single click, so the technique is widely used (and also frequently misused). The usual way to ask for an uncontroversial move is at 9886: 9203: 7335:

to have absolute garbage in the draft space? Also no. It's a weird balance between "who cares" and "OMG the server kittens", and I think I fall slightly on the side of the kittens.

753: 6311:

parameter, so if User A places the G7 and User B places the rationale (along the lines you describe above) that would meet the "clearly everyone's happy with this" criteria of G7.

1549: 851: 723: 10478: 10139: 8329: 5671: 2344: 2330: 2313: 1670: 10846: 9219: 5475:

Thanks for your comment. I agree that is fine; I'm concerned only about batch deletions without checking individually beforehand. If this isn't happening, I withdraw my comment.

682: 9930: 5389: 10460:

This discussion has concluded with "There is a strong consensus against applying G2 to unusued duplicate templates, unless the duplicate was obviously created as a test edit."

8039: 7735: 6486: 6408: 1347:

is irrelevant, since this change means nothing for CSDs done with Twinkle. For CSDs not done with Twinkle, modules need to be treated differently regardless, and I think using

154:: definitely not a G6. It's better to redirect the less-developed draft to the other one, so that the content remains visible in history so that it can be merged if necessary. 10891: 10832: 10800: 7097: 3237: 2297: 1868:

I don't believe a PROD precludes a CSD, but usually if an editor feels one of the CSD criteria apply, they would have used it instead of a PROD(as well as a reviewing admin).

219:

Point of clarification: I think the redirect deletion can be done speedily when a page is moved from an incorrect title. Certainly there was no reason not to speedily delete

10615: 10597: 10528: 8097: 8083: 8069: 8055: 7885: 7867: 7059: 2947:

the best way to deal with that sort of situation, but that's because I knew/know a lot of available admins who could deal with it more quickly than that particular template.

2875: 2719: 2429: 1960: 1862: 1576:

to fix it manually. I admit this was sloppy logic, and I am willing to drop the issue, even though there are some parts of my original question(s) that this doesn't cover. --

990: 793: 748: 612: 10785: 8838:

as we do not really need a load of rarely used or remembered criteria. TFD would be fine. Test duplications could be deleted as tests, or possible copyright infringements.

8532:

Per the above/main section, I'm not seeing any significant opposition to deprecating or otherwise significantly changing T3 (quoted below just to save time clicking about).

5232:

Some of the claims made in this article are not verifiable by the sole given source. Please cite sources, especially for the plot description. Suggested sources to look at:

3916: 10606:

I would add that the edit-confirmed salt, rather than the absolute salt, probably meets nearly all salt requirements that arise in in draftspace, and should be used more.

10556: 9911:” to “Obsolete groups” (actually, the name “groups” is ad-hoc; we never gave a name to the groupings introduced with the letters), mention both X and T there, and refer to 9801: 8749:: if it's not useful in practice then there's no point to it, as everything that falls afoul of the criterion will also fall afoul of more basic guidelines and policies. — 7850: 7802:

Anything at WP:NOT can be a reason to take to MfD, but the problem with NOTWEBHOST is that very rarely does a nominator provide evidence of WEBHOSTing, such as pageviews. —

7763: 6759: 6741: 6725: 6677: 6653: 4400:

Do not reference Korean Knowledge. That is not a reliable source. Tone is also of concern since it makes POV statements about the author without attribution of who said it.

3062: 2871: 1991: 1648: 1626: 1494: 629: 10399: 10145: 9967: 8402: 8022:, every time the above user takes out their soapbox to rail inflexibly against WP:IAR and speedies serve little purpose and is pretty tangential to this thread. As I said 7777: 7041: 6995: 6539:

Fair enough. As to the second part of your question, yes, as far as I'm aware this is something that could be written up to meet the specifications to which you describe.

6204: 4273: 2695: 1691: 1677: 811: 576:

criteria, because a bad faith editor can add some minor edits, so it does not meet G5. e.g: A banned editor A created a page, and another B added a null edit by appending

240: 214: 10631: 10312: 10294: 10262: 10247: 10144:

Currently the policy page is silent about whether soft redirects qualify for speedy deletion under the R criteria for redirects. This rarely comes up, but did in part at

9816: 9780: 9766: 8385: 8363: 8035: 8031: 6955:

redirects to draft space because we would not want to redirect readers into pages that are under construction. If this is certainly possible, we can probably add that to

5781: 5488: 3427: 3285: 3016: 1298: 1141: 874: 199: 10372:

not always clear which) so it fails the uncontestable requirement of speedy deletion criteria. I also disagree that not speedy deleting something condones its presence.

9408: 8088:

Really. Fortunately, dismissive hand waving at prior discussion has no affect on its actual substance; mischaracterize it all you want; others can read for themselves.--

6156: 5592:

I am pretty sure that some admins are doing (or have been doing) batch G13 deletions. In a few cases where I've restored a recently deleted draft following a request at

3321:

You'll end up with the same issue that IABot had back when it first started - the potential for an approved article with a half-dozen pointless G13 notifications on it.

3144: 1585: 1570: 1268: 891: 651: 10872: 10472: 10441:

I thought that you may be interested in an ongoing RfC regarding if G2 should apply for duplicate templates following the deprecation of T3. You can find the RfC here:

10215: 9747: 8934:. Given that the vast majority of nominations are declined, and the other comments above, it seems that it does not meet the requirements for speedy deletion criteria. 7927: 7711: 7556: 6320: 3258: 3108: 2965:

Forgive the double-post, but I just re-read the "reasonable objections", and based on my reply above to Reyk I'd say the first one is pretty valid (I'd go for an admin

2590: 2480: 2257: 2240: 2222: 2184: 2160: 2151:, take it to AfD instead with a link to the deprod. A later discovered G5 or G12 CSD eligibility should not be hindered by a prior PROD and dePROD over notability. -- 2136: 1469: 660: 350: 259: 10842: 10131: 10089: 9953: 9944: 9681: 9666: 9648: 9633: 9616: 9597: 9583: 9568: 9438: 9348: 9237: 8605: 8506: 8416: 8176: 8127: 8013: 7978: 7963: 7949: 7365: 7282: 7267: 6857: 6839: 6292: 5287:, but more specific references are needed, and the article needs to be more navigable. Reliable Knowledge articles rarely cite everything from Britannica, for example. 3164: 3094: 2021: 1823: 1808: 1793: 1172: 1123: 1044: 1010: 998: 980: 460: 445: 125:

redirects in the draft namespace which were created as a result of page move to fix a typo in the title (redirect target is either in the draft or article namespace) (

10857: 10545: 10107: 10043: 9866: 9383: 9368: 8552:

My reasoning for this proposal is twofold: first, as someone who regularly patrols this category I very rarely see instances where T3 would be appropriate and/or the

7833: 7344: 7212: 7191: 6185: 5981: 5950: 5922: 5908: 5885: 5863: 5723: 5469: 3129: 2529: 2466: 2443: 2092: 2065: 2052: 2001: 1509: 1435: 1403: 1384: 1363: 1334: 1312: 1087: 1029: 769: 521: 422: 368:

If the two drafts are on the aME TOPIC BUT ARE NOT IDENTICAL, A redieect leaves the content available in the history, where it can be merged into the remaining draft.

326: 10066: 10052: 9498: 8527: 8207: 8060:

You are entitled to your opinion that I am wrong, but you will have to do better than linking to old discussions where you have previously failed to demonstrate it.

6791: 6591: 6582: 6548: 6534: 6501: 6341: 6200: 6085: 6070: 5565: 5525: 4513: 4154: 4115: 4074: 3412: 3398: 3375: 3360: 3330: 3316: 2982: 2915: 2031: 1877: 1239: 1207:

For the record, Twinkle can be used for CSD tagging modules (it will put the tag on the /doc page) and for CSS/JS pages (but not for sanitized-css or json pages). –

1196: 1102: 959: 656:

This doesn't have to be an RFC; there's no dispute here. The idea that some admin somewhere would decline a G5 because someone added an html comment is facetious. —

398: 10454: 10430: 10381: 10366: 9526: 9454: 7910: 7811: 6883: 6695: 6564: 6366: 5607: 3158: 3006: 2896: 2614: 2576: 2563: 2511: 1218: 559: 502: 297: 10643: 10538: 10491: 9843: 9553: 8458: 8438: 8146: 7797: 7644: 7621: 7586: 7424: 7388: 6171: 6054: 6007: 5777: 4802: 2902:

I check G6 at least once a day, though obviously I'm not on every day (though I rarely see more than about 10 pages in the cat). Is there ever a case where a page

2765: 1940: 1921: 1895: 1776: 485: 163: 10571: 10442: 8307: 8292: 8277: 7306: 5761: 5742: 2956: 2941: 541: 184: 10647: 9476: 8855:. In the end, CSD are supposed to be shortcuts that keep a deluge of no-brainers out of XfD. Without that deluge, a SPEEDY criterion is just bureaucratic creep. 8254: 6113: 6039: 5890:

I don't know the answer to the question "how often," but NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a violations, if true, would make the fair-use rationale's validity doubtful at best.

5556:

I think the notifications are not really that related of an issue. I imagine that the vast majority of draft authors are long gone by the time G13 rolls around.

3218: 584: 9896:

for raising this question. I agree that T and X should be handled the same. However, X is not handled well, IMHO. It is currently covered in two (sub)sections:

8789:: High rate of improper T3 tagging combined with other effective avenues available as needed (TFD, tagging as test, redirecting) means deprecation sounds fine. 8619:, as proposer. I personally do not think B is worth implementing, as we will still have the issue of most T3s being improper and/or valid under other criteria. 8463: 7606: 7409: 7021: 5624: 5587: 5577: 2781: 10280: 7474: 7456: 7439: 5819: 5085: 4882: 4397:

Custom: "Likely notable, but the format is messed up at the moment with the sectioning and spacing. Also concerns that it might be copy-pasted from somewhere."

3452: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 10752: 8338:

Not a TfD regular, but I don't have a strong feeling it needs to be kept (I note Izno's points as somewhat (IMO) for and against). It'd be weird not to have

4177:

Three general references and two additional references in footnotes, including entry specifically about article subject in Encylopedia of Korean Folk Culture

10812:

Did you look at the archives of this page? Merging U1 with G7 is often suggested (but never by a regular of this page), and always rejected. See for example

7349: 7324: 6956: 4521: 4384: 4329: 3201: 10684: 10534: 5652: 5549: 2661: 2572:

from a few months ago, and I was thinking of implementing the draft text I proposed there, with the obvious additions of anything that gets decided here. –

802:

substantial edits made after the creator saved the page. A TFD and three different people warring over which CSD tags to use do not negate a G5 nomination.

173:

is to avoid breaking external sites linking to Knowledge. With most drafts however, that should not be a problem, so that deletions should be okay. Regards

10620:

Twinkle has ECP salt as standard for a while now, so people should just use that. As for the proposal, I largely agree with WilyD's comment above. Regards

10495: 6372: 5830:

Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:Dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.

5280: 5175: 5134: 5093: 5052: 5012: 4970: 4930: 4890: 4425: 4376: 4281: 4239: 2359: 1111:

Instead of writing in prose whether you want just the module itself, just the doc page, or both to be deleted, why not recommend using <includeonly: -->

8226:

I've been mulling this idea over in my head for quite a while now, moreso since the deprecation of T2 a short while ago. I keep fairly consistent tabs on

6176:

Additionally, I don't think anyone is going to say that the "wrong" criteria was used if (for example) it "should have been" a G10 but was deleted as G3.

6970: 4850: 4810: 4690: 4650: 4608: 3924: 3882: 3874: 3833: 3791: 3749: 3705: 3663: 3617: 3572: 3531: 1639:

links and is not a move. I eventually decided against nominating it for deletion, precisely due to the concern of external links as I described above. --

936: 272: 268: 10486:

Frequently in the draftspace (less frequently in articlespace) we see pages created with an incorrect title when the correct title in that namespace is

10007:

alternate spelling, but happened to be created first which is why C originally pointed there; I would argue C should not be deleted without its own RFD.

6930: 5702: 2742: 10193: 9872: 5370: 5317: 5264: 4021: 3966: 3825: 3072:

notice a month back will be enough. I would recommend doing two notices, one at "30 days out" and one at "7 days out." The 7-day out one should have

1632: 10715: 10151:

If consensus here agrees with me, I propose to add the sentence "These criteria do not apply to soft redirects." at the end of the first paragraph at

10010:

In scenario Y, A is nominated because the term doesn't appear at B, and thus is an improper redirect; in this case, C should probably be deleted with

7858:

already notwebhost is abused for article attempts. And this proposal is so subjective, it would also be abused for anything the tagger does not like.

8110: 4771: 4200: 1527: 10461: 6731:

articles with CSD tags on them. You would have to either filter those out, look for certain kinds of links only, or restrict to certain namespaces.

2602:. I couldn't bring myself to re-introduce the bit about creators removing tags they've placed in error, but if anyone wishes to see this text back ( 9208:

I suspect Scottywong has misread/misinterpreted the verbiage of available options. Their !vote rationale appears to be in support of Option A... -

8234: 5414: 5216: 4870: 4731: 4473: 1833: 1604: 1596: 10552:

Redundant. Either the new page is already deleteable for the same reason it would have been at the correct title, or the salting was incorrect. —

9170: 8847: 8830: 7352:

is offensive to Wikipedians. That discussion last year that concluded that G11 is invalidated by the spam language being written in the style of

6747: 6021:. I've not seen deletion templates used for "obvious" improper "additional uses" - editors just summarily remove those on sight, as they should. 2928:, and then immediately does some edits to the new redirect to prevent the page being moved straight back. That would require immediate attention. 6872:

that automatically handled obvious u1/g7 deletion, until the operator was the subject of an ArbCom case (not related to the bot) and desysoped. -

3167:

for why this stopped happening and how it can start up again, hopefully. Unfortunately, we lost a valued bot operator who took care of this task.

1970:

wrong. I've seen no policy or guideline anywhere that says I was right in thinking ProD precludes CSD if CSD is applicable on it's own merits. --

1608: 1600: 1592: 387:

In short I see no value in speedy deletion for such cases, and significant downsides. Indeed I might be tempted to bring such a deletion to DRV.

9329: 9004: 9080: 8813: 8118:

doesn't fit any criterion. If we find ourselves IARing the same sort of things for the same or similar reasons, it's time to rethink the rule.

7379:". That might cover somebody's speculation about the upcoming sports season or about what will happen in the next installment of the Avengers. 2770:

I agree with mazca'a assessment that in most cases they should be mergeable/redirectable but minor subgroups are not protected per se. Regards

9260: 9153: 5641:

controversial categories. I don't think it's become a problem yet, but it's interesting to notice it happening, in general, with most admins.

3898:

Thank you for creating this article. There are no inline citations, only one overall source at the end of the article. Are there more sources?

3765:

Thank you for creating this article. There are no inline citations, only one overall source at the end of the article. Are there more sources?

2637:

for C1, for templates awaiting CSD T3. Some users, myself included, questioned why the 7-day waiting period is necessary in the first place. –

9434: 9308: 9279: 9188: 8892: 8659: 3022: 9125: 8943: 8697: 8677: 6388: 2730:

I'm curious, does the A7 exemption to schools extend through to individual department or faculties or does it stop at the institute proper?

9059: 8869: 8714: 8628: 276: 9291: 8960: 8781: 5994:

Technically speaking, DFU does not necessarily result in the deletion of the image. From the template text, "the file will be deleted or

2677:

a bot that tracks membership in whatever category T3s are in, by doing a partial transclusion of pages that have the T3 template on them.

10276: 10268: 10221: 9018: 8762: 8158:

The only situations where speedy deletion uncontroversially improves the encyclopaedia is when the page meets one or more of the criteria

6516:

It's low-hanging fruit and will free up administrators to do other things. That's what bots are for, the "no thought required" things.

220: 47: 17: 9395: 9104: 9039: 8987: 3298:

That's easy enough to do, just have the bot put a note on the draft's talk page. Anyone watching their watchlists will see the change.

3002:(rather than using G6), most editors who patrol that are pagemovers, and they would almost always use a pageswap to perform the move. – 10112:

Unless the redirect was explicitly mentioned in an RfD discussion and that discussion came to a clear consensus to delete the redirect

8926: 8741: 8642: 8556:

method of reasonable deletion; the template can be redirected to the "original" template or deleted under a different criteria such as

7626:

It matters somewhat for the policy page itself, but for the talk page? Let's not clutter discussions by policing each other's grammar.

6947:. Do you think that any namespace redirecting to Draft: namespace (i.e. Knowledge: space to Draft: space) would also be applied to R2? 6895: 2600: 9251:

per the above it can be covered by different speedy criteria and that the tagging is usually wrong. Edge cases can be handled at TfD.

7987:

appropriate and similarly anyone regularly misusing a criterion. IAR is explicitly meant to be interpreted narrowly and represent the

907: 699: 10339: 9399: 8421:

I might have said something that could be construed as rationalizing removal because it takes a delay, but that was not my intent. I

902:

Since it takes some extra work to ask that a module be speedy-deleted, I drafted a new section called "Modules" then self-reverted.

10122:

would be incorrect. Common sense judgement calls are, by definition, subjective and so not suitable as a basis for speedy deletion.

9706:

I think these deletions of pages with non-trivial histories, including signed comments by other editors, should be invalid under G6.

8821:

If there is duplication, it may not be clear which is the primary version and which is the secondary and so discussion is required.

5838:

remove the template, and add a "full and valid fair-use rationale" or rewrite the existing one if it's not already "full and valid."

2245: 2706: 2630: 8568:(copy/pastes), etc. Second, there is currently a seven-day hold period for all T3 nominations, meaning that sending a template to 6898: 1673:). R3 wouldn't apply unless the redirect was recently created, and I'm not aware of any exceptions to this recency requirement. – 903: 9470: 8544:

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

2200: 5530:

P.S. I think a lot of the angst over G13s will be alleviated when the 5 month notices start being sent out again, hopefully, by

3982:

10 footnotes. Entry specifically about article subject in Encyclopedia of Modern Korean Literature listed in "see also" section.

1281:

My solution for tagging modules without needing to mess with their doc page or content model is now live. You can see a demo at

1227:

where the UK20200809 object includes a name/value pair named "comments", which is ignored by the bot that processes the page. --

10436: 10094:

Thanks for the responses. Yes, I was pretty much thinking of scenario Y where a redirect was missed in a previous RfD. Maybe {{

4013: 946:(as far as XFDs go) and by that logic Modules also fall under the Template CSD criteria (which I believe at the moment is only 9538:. Sometimes there's a case opened which is clearly not worth archiving. These routinely get deleted under G6. For example, 9363: 8951:. Doesn't seem to be very useful in practice. Deprecating it would be a small but useful simplification of our CSD criteria. 8864: 8368:

I would agree that not having any T categories would be a little strange, but having watched the multitudes of debates about

8264:

already, ofc; readers should review). Or full replacement with a template-PROD (maybe with some listing of prodded templates

7234: 6093: 5494: 3366:...which no one will remove, much like IABot's posts that (if I remember correctly) ended with pretty much the same message. 2271: 7145:

Knowledge:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 33 § Creation of a CSD criteria for articles and drafts with no encyclopedic value

5670:

archives and hope that what I'm looking for shows up in the first few hits. So far I've been lucky (today I came across the

512:

per DES and Smokeyjoe. This fails the uncontestable requirement that almost pages that could be deleted using it should be.

10727:

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

8478:

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

8221: 7132:

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

2655: 10901:

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

9466:

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

8217:

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

1389:

It's not really much worse, but it's not really any better either, and this it is not worth the increase in complexity of

379:

A redir can be created by any user, there is no need to involve an admin. It is more transparent. It has no real downside.

8342:

T categories, though? As you point out, arguably we don't since T3 is speedy in process not time, but, still. Weird. ~

7918:

fails the requirements for CSD criteria to be objective and non-redundant, and the frequent requirement is also dubious.

7842: 7758: 7027: 6940: 6196: 5868:

How often has a dfu-tagged file been deleted uncontested, anyways, despite having a "full and valid fair-use rationale"?

5583:

probably indicates they delete without checking (the proportion of promising drafts is small, but not as small as 0%). –

2798:

SOME DB-G6 "make way for a move" deletion requests can be "split" so the move doesn't have to wait for an administrator.

2040:

deletion. Once an article has been de-PRODded, it's clearly no longer uncontroversial, so a re-PROD cannot take place. --

1538:

but to avoid any appearance of impropriety (i.e., an end run around the normal deletion process) I won't mention it here.

10706:

This has been discussed before, with no new arguments in support and pretty much unanimous opposition expressed so far.

9314: 8004:(frequent, objective, uncontestable, non-redundant) in contrast to the current proposal which fails 2 of 3 of the four. 7030:" administrators would also delete redirects from Portal: spaces to Draft: spaces (even when they are caused by moves). 6443:(not "User talk:", that could be abused to delete user talk page, not main user page, I'd want a human to read it first) 2568:

Well, the understanding certainly is there for some less obvious cases where creators can remove speedy tags. There was

8809: 8357: 7693:

With a whiff of promotion, a worthless page should be deletable by G11, blatant spam, regardless of the language style.

5773: 1463: 6390:

was a multi-author page which the proposed bot would ignore, it could just as easily have been a single-author page.

5460:

deleted them. I know that not all admins do this, but the implication that "batch deletions are bad" is simply false.

3633:

The article needs more inline citations from reliable secondary source and some internal links if it is to be accepted

9148: 9071:

as second choice. Also, Nabla's suggestion that the "duplicate" criteria be combined seems eminently sensible to me.

5787: 1340: 862:

have been tried, let alone exhausted. That aside, "substantial" is subjective, we cannot define a "minimum limit". --

567: 8320:

T3" or similar. Since a TfD is already created, going through the TfD process is faster than now nominating for T3.

4582:

Allstatements that amount to judgement or evaluation must be referenced to a third-party independent reliable source

3163:

Yes, HasteurBot notified page creators at 5 months that their drafts were approaching G13 status. See discussion at

858:

Why has this gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC? I can't find any evidence that the suggestions at

9276: 8995:

but duplicate templates and hardcoded templates should be speedy redirected to the template they are replicating.

8887: 7319:

entries in the draft space that are little more than "I'm cool, look at my soundcloud/blog/whatever" (even if they

5769: 1745: 9641:, G6 is also routinely used to delete talk pages of deleted pages, regardless of the history of the talk page. -- 8390:

The fact that T3 isn't immediate is not a reason to remove it. Many of the F criteria also have a grace period. --

8261: 5998:

from some uses seven days after this template was added" (emphasis added). I have never used DFU in this way. --

2626: 580:

to the end. Should this page still meet G5? This RfC is for reaching consensus or uniamity about this problem. --

491:

think it is unbhelpful". Obtaining consensus where there is no pre-existing consensus is not a waste of time IMO.

9199: 8325: 7954:

The answer to the problem of misuse of a speedy deletion criterion is not to authorise a semi-related criterion.

7245:

That still leaves us with the same problem of obtaining consensus to modify A7. Wikipedians love the status quo.

5511: 2326: 2293: 126: 119: 8610: 8026:: "It is utter fiction that WP:IAR is never a correct justification for speedy deletion but I see no purpose in 2382:

from it unless he placed it there himself. Otherwise, only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so.

7276: 7074:

There are four requirements for new and expanded criteria: Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, Nonredundant. I

6251:

then have each additonal author add their own signature after the first author's signature in subsequent edits.

5834:

I would say that the deleting admin should "use his head" and see how the file is actually being used. If the

5718: 5345: 5291: 5239: 4540: 4448: 4304: 4049: 3857: 3724: 3637: 3592: 2737: 2520:

I agree. This is silly. Obviously someone is not going to think it refers to reverting their own mistaken tag.

2016: 1621: 1343:. Most non-article pages don't transclude themselves. Either way, this change still appears to lack a purpose. 886: 497: 440: 393: 6943:(unless if it targets to Category:, Template:, Knowledge:, Help:, and Portal: spaces) are usually deleted per 6348:

Thanks to all for the response. I don't know how I missed the "rationale" parameter, that solves the issue.

6106: 2834:

There aren't enough page movers to really make this worthwhile (less than 400 vs. thousands of administrators)

10779: 9771:

That sounds sensible. WP:CSD should catch up with accepted practice. A new CSD criterion for SPI business. —

7185: 6924: 6671: 6528: 6480: 6402: 6360: 6271: 6033: 5975: 5902: 5857: 5309: 3958: 3392: 3354: 3310: 3088: 2890: 2854: 2689: 2557: 2460: 2408: 1282: 1224: 1166: 1081: 930: 897: 408:. G6 should not cover unimportant unnecessary deletions like draft duplicates. There is no need to delete, 291: 8155:

IAR is only for situations where a rule prevents an action that uncontroversially improves the encyclopaedia

5479:, you were the one who told me that others did batch deletions. Do you know how these are conducted? Thanks, 434:

page moves is the only case I can think of where G6 should apply to a page with a non-trivial edit history.

6979:, redirects from mainspace to the draft namespace are eligible for R2. What are you proposing to change? – 6889: 6045:

BTW, how often have dfu-tagged files been removed from other pages but still left intact in just one page?

1736: 1635:, for which it is trivial to check Special:WhatLinksHere and Special:Log to verify that it has no incoming 1256: 10562:

pointless BITE the new user unfamiliar with Knowledge bureaucracy and accelerate declining participation.

2583:

Not greatly concerned either way, but not all of our editors are equally endowed with common sense. · · ·

1842:

are previously PRODded (or de-PRODded) pages still eligible for CSD? I initially thought about discussing

1661:, then barring exceptional circumstances it will almost certainly result in unanimous deletion (examples: 1154:

could write documentation if I'm going to share the script with others or encourage others to import it.

10541:

is not that it was created at a title similar to one previously salted, the problem is that it's spam. –

10422: 10358: 8979: 7902: 7726: 5664: 3034:

6 months later, it gets tagged for G13, the author gets a talk page message about it, and it gets deleted

2725: 2425: 971:

from memory, applying T3 to modules was discussed and rejected previously although I can't remember why.

678: 537: 8770:

Redundant to TfD and frequently misused by editors to nominate pages that should be discussed at TfD. -

8113:. Although IAR wasn't outright cited, it was in effect an IAR speedy deletion. There was some hoo-ha at 6600:

Probably a bit cart-before-horse at this point in time, but any bot tasked with this should be checking

10747: 9729: 9195: 8922: 8321: 8161:

Therefore, every speedy deletion not supported by a criterion is controversial and not suitable for IAR

7398:

immediate deletion can already be handled by the existing criteria (notably G10, G11 and G12). Regards

7036: 6965: 5913:

PROD can be used for the same reasons as dfu, i.e. PROD would challenge the validity of the rationale.

4139: 4100: 2488: 2322: 2289: 38: 9489:

It's occasionally been said that CSD#G6 is a catch all that is easily abused. Is this an example? --

4706:

The tone of this is rather promotional and looks to have been copied from some other magazine article.

10690: 10611: 10508: 10098:}} would indeed be a better choice. I guess it's going to have to be a common-sense judgment call. -- 9166: 8843: 8826: 8093: 8051: 7881: 7863: 7685:

There is no need, or desire, or any good reason for anyone to react to worthless pages in draftspace.

7672:

If the worthless draft is unsubmitted, ignore it. This is the proper purpose for Draftspace and G13.

6952: 6755: 6721: 6649: 3233: 3190:

and that is where it might be moved since they have the most background on drafts, stale or regular.

2620: 236: 195: 7331:

to have them sit for six months before they can be deleted. Is this the end of the world? No. Do we

6428:

As a simple example, a bot that would auto-delete a page in user space in which ALL of these apply:

5733:

know if it's valuable to index major discussions (whether they result in change or not to a PAG). --

10411:

are for uncontroversial cases, which this clearly is not given all this discussion surrounding it.

9882: 6948: 6129: 2650: 1687: 1644: 1581: 1545: 6217:

Requested change to G7. Author requests deletion - to allow for multiple authors to do a joint G7

10334: 10330: 9000: 7846: 7750: 7678:

If the worthless REJECTED draft is resubmitted (without dramatic unexpected improvement), MfD it.

7510: 6425:

requests are simple enough that they will always be deleted. This sounds like a task for a bot.

5963:, and, if there are no other issues with the image, no other conditions, this seems reasonable. 3120:

I think a better idea would be to limit the number of times a G13-deleted draft can be REFUNDed.

3013: 1983: 843: 785: 715: 604: 255: 9009:

A – speedy deletion rules need to be bright-line and it looks as though these should go to TFD.

2872:

Knowledge talk:Page mover#Discussion on WT:CSD that would affect those with the page-mover right

271:

to make room for a bio of someone who actually has that name, consider logging it as: "Deleted

10299: 9076: 8806: 8353: 7721: 6638: 6461:

Would you support this if went to the appropriate channels and asked for a bot to be written?

5561: 5484: 5362: 3465: 3423: 3403:

Historically, having a bot make an edit that a bot later removes/undoes has been frowned upon.

2496: 2421: 1591:

I am not clkear. If this isn't a redir from a move, how did it occur if that is known? Is this

1459: 1348: 730: 689: 674: 9394:

For reference, I dug up the original discussions from 2007-2008 when this criteria was added:

3679:

The draft needs more inline citations so that it is clear where the statements originate from.

2434:

No objection to the intent, but I have reworded it to avoid the needlessly gendered language.

279:), to make room for draft bio of John Smitth, a world-champion 18th-century Scrabble player." 10807: 10307: 10289: 10242: 10181: 9829: 9725: 9543: 9145: 7997: 7173:

this is worth doing to demonstrate that the benefit is worth the "bureaucratic creep" cost.

6976: 5256: 4716: 4600: 4465: 2587: 2477: 1708:"or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)." 1251:

Yes, but they don't get parsed as wikitext, so can't be used to add categories. For example,

626: 4170:

Please add a lead to the article and properly source the article. For more information, see

550:

redirects should not normally be deleted when moving a draft article to the main namespace.

118:

drafts which are near duplicates of another draft (may or may not have the same author(s)) (

10607: 10504: 9304: 9229: 9180: 9162: 8883: 8839: 8822: 8655: 8502: 8454: 8106: 8089: 8047: 7877: 7859: 7741: 7316: 6935: 6751: 6717: 6645: 6608: 6288: 5394: 5297: 5244: 5196: 5155: 5114: 5073: 4922: 4842: 4830: 4711: 4670: 4405: 4261: 4216:

20 footnotes, including article specifically about subject in Encylopedia of Korean Culture

4054: 4001: 3946: 3904: 3771: 3643: 3597: 3552: 3229: 3214: 3172: 3058: 2791: 2715: 1752: 1490: 1390: 1380: 1330: 1294: 1264: 1223:

JSON does allow comments, if you disguise them as data within an object - see for instance

1137: 1129: 1119: 232: 191: 10329:, e.g. from the mainspace to draftspace, should be deleted regardless of whether they are 9738:

I am not sure that "uncontroversial maintenance for GAN" would be as easily justified. --

9607:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danielipforsecretary

6432:

only editor is "the user" in question (I'd want a human to review multi-contributor pages)

8: 10887: 10868: 10828: 10796: 10593: 10524: 10468: 10450: 10377: 10258: 10211: 10185: 10160: 10127: 10085: 9893: 9878: 9862: 9812: 9776: 9743: 9662: 9629: 9593: 9564: 9494: 9441:. Maybe they could be consolidated in a general criteria for (obvious) duplicate content? 9325: 9121: 8939: 8692: 8673: 8398: 8172: 8079: 8065: 8009: 7959: 7923: 7807: 7707: 7617: 7542: 7525: 7361: 7253: 7093: 6835: 6125: 6081: 6050: 5946: 5918: 5881: 5815: 5269: 4962: 4910: 4642: 3140: 2638: 2525: 2439: 2253: 2236: 2218: 2180: 2156: 2132: 2088: 2048: 1956: 1917: 1858: 1819: 1789: 1683: 1654: 1640: 1577: 1541: 1235: 1181: 1025: 976: 870: 859: 622:

establishes general notability, yes, if it merely duplicates a dubious source, no. · · ·

555: 517: 456: 418: 346: 322: 7415:

issue, and if anything that can be dealt with by sanctioning the editor (if necessary).

2248:

appears to be a file deletion equivalent of PROD, but with no prior de-PROD caveats. --

1733:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Tphoon Mujigae (disambiguation)

1177:

For what it's worth, I vaguely recall deleting a .css or something similar that had the

826:

were incorrectly applied, it would be addressable by contacting deleting admin and then

10814:

Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 78#Merge of criteria U1, U2, and U5

10711: 10152: 10103: 10062: 10039: 9990: 9963: 9950: 9927: 9754: 9678: 9645: 9613: 9580: 9550: 9379: 9358: 9344: 9054: 8996: 8859: 8710: 8624: 8601: 8523: 8412: 8381: 8288: 8250: 8230:

and I would say that I decline probably 80-90% of the pages that have been tagged with

8123: 7974: 7945: 7773: 7745: 7502: 7420: 7353: 7340: 7279: 7229: 7222: 7116: 7055: 6850: 6818: 6784: 6618: 6578: 6544: 6497: 6492:

What problem is this attempting to solve? Do we usually have a backlog of U1 requests?

6316: 6181: 6167: 5757: 5716: 5698: 5687: 5465: 5406: 5221: 5032: 5017: 4935: 4895: 4763: 4751: 4736: 4723: 4588: 4546: 4501: 4363: 4219: 4180: 4159: 4146: 3408: 3371: 3326: 3281: 3115: 3104: 2978: 2952: 2911: 2340: 2309: 2014: 1972: 1804: 1721: 1619: 1192: 1098: 1040: 1006: 955: 915: 884: 832: 807: 774: 734: 704: 593: 495: 438: 391: 251: 8376:

any reasons to speedily-delete a template that isn't already covered by G2 and/or G3.

7197:

thinking is PROD, but without the waiting period, and with the ability to tag drafts.

6463:

For any bot-writers out there, does this look like something that could be written up

6076:

an admin to challenge the dfu would take days before either direct deletion or FFD. --

5845:

it should be, contingent upon a suitable fair-use rationale being added immediately.

10775: 10542: 10049: 9921:: Put a link under each first occurrence of a letter to the corresponding subsection. 9833: 9288: 9209: 9072: 8955: 8799: 8793: 8771: 8349: 7983:

Any using IAR to justify speedy deletion needs taking to ANI quick sharpish as it is

7506: 7181: 6920: 6873: 6667: 6588: 6561: 6524: 6476: 6398: 6356: 6267: 6110: 6029: 5971: 5898: 5853: 5584: 5574: 5557: 5531: 5480: 5322: 4682: 4026: 3622: 3609: 3461: 3419: 3388: 3350: 3306: 3243: 3084: 3068:

I like the idea of not giving them a notice on "day zero." I'm not sure giving them

3003: 2886: 2850: 2685: 2611: 2573: 2553: 2508: 2456: 2404: 2062: 2028: 1998: 1674: 1476: 1455: 1162: 1077: 926: 287: 135: 7461:

I did not assert that as a defense of a new CSD criterion. Instead, I was rebutting

3640:

and entry specifically about subject in Dictionary for Traditional Korean Literature

10302: 10284: 10237: 10177: 9793: 9758: 9576:, Um, people actually nominate SPIs for deletion at MfD? I'll get the popcorn. -- 9486:

Is it appropriate that GAN admins may delete per G6 a review that they don't like?

9252: 9140: 9014: 8916: 8755: 8487: 8203: 8198:, "no encyclopedic value" is inevitably going to fail the objectivity requirement. 8001: 7699: 7601: 7071: 6806: 6419: 6066: 5956: 5842: 5593: 5535: 5004: 4494: 4231: 3697: 3564: 3180: 3124: 2673: 2607: 2584: 2504: 2474: 2355:

Clarified that page-authors can remove their own speedy tags - common sense applies

2281: 2228: 1873: 1504: 1431: 1398: 1358: 1307: 1214: 745: 744:

contain anything vague. I was sleeping while you guys asked this question. sry. --

695: 670: 623: 581: 547: 480: 210: 159: 9713:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stonemason89

5873: 10817: 10626: 10580:

Stop overquick SALTing of draftspace titles. There is SALT policy documented at

10566: 10116: 10095: 10014: 9450: 9403: 9300: 9269: 9099: 9035: 8878: 8651: 8498: 8450: 8141: 7792: 7451: 7404: 7384: 7016: 6990: 6869: 6628: 6337: 6284: 6192: 5869: 5434: 5388:

Three general references, including entry specifically about article subject in

4975: 4855: 4655: 4613: 4458: 4430: 4286: 4192: 3929: 3887: 3850: 3796: 3754: 3710: 3668: 3577: 3054: 2995: 2776: 2711: 2124: 2119:"CSD G3, this is a blatant hoax" might be dubious because the disagreement of an 1565: 1486: 1441: 1376: 1326: 1290: 1260: 1148: 1133: 1115: 533: 409: 179: 10443:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should G2 now apply to duplicate templates?

9721: 9654: 9225: 8515: 6824: 6812: 5290:

Ten general references, including entries specifically about article subject in

3853:, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. 2824:

I continue working on NEWPAGE, without having had to wait for an administrator.

111: 106:

G6 as applied to draft duplicates and redirects from typo in the draft namespace

46:

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

10883: 10864: 10841:

already at the top of this page finds numerous previous discussions, including

10821: 10792: 10589: 10585: 10581: 10520: 10487: 10480: 10464: 10446: 10373: 10344: 10254: 10207: 10156: 10123: 10081: 9940: 9858: 9808: 9772: 9739: 9671: 9658: 9638: 9625: 9602: 9589: 9573: 9560: 9490: 9321: 9117: 8935: 8689: 8669: 8638: 8434: 8391: 8303: 8273: 8168: 8102: 8075: 8061: 8005: 7955: 7919: 7803: 7768:

Yes, but I think the point is to avoid MFD in an effort to "lighten the load".

7703: 7613: 7561: 7550: 7538: 7518: 7470: 7435: 7357: 7302: 7261: 7249: 7207: 7199: 7161: 7153: 7089: 6909: 6828: 6301: 6077: 6046: 6003: 5939: 5914: 5877: 5811: 5772:. If you think it would be better placed somewhere else, feel free to move it. 5738: 5507: 5419: 5375: 5180: 5139: 5098: 5057: 4695: 4630: 4490: 4442: 4389: 4368: 4298: 4171: 4066: 3862: 3838: 3813: 3729: 3685: 3655: 3636:

Four general references, including entry specifically about article subject in

3536: 3456: 3154: 3136: 2991: 2935: 2811: 2521: 2500: 2435: 2249: 2232: 2214: 2176: 2152: 2145: 2128: 2084: 2041: 1952: 1934: 1913: 1889: 1854: 1815: 1785: 1482: 1286: 1246: 1228: 1051: 1021: 972: 863: 551: 513: 452: 427: 414: 336: 312: 7104:

Creation of a CSD criterion for articles and drafts with no encyclopedic value

6587:

Ah, my bad. But otherwise, I've got the same experience with U1 as with G7. –

5456:

drafts (which was something like a dozen pages) I checked each one first, and

5233: 4345:

I have now accepted it, regardless of coi; there are enough good references.

4303:

Two general references, including entry specifically about article subject in

3446:

Batch deletions of G13 content (ETA: without individual evaluation beforehand)

10707: 10680: 10662: 10408: 10201: 10099: 10058: 10035: 10029:

You could probably make the argument that G8 would also apply for Y, since C

9986: 9959: 9675: 9642: 9610: 9577: 9547: 9535: 9480: 9426:

really sound like "B"s (I prefer "B", so that may be me reading it my way...)

9375: 9355: 9340: 9134: 9050: 8856: 8706: 8620: 8597: 8569: 8519: 8408: 8377: 8284: 8246: 8241: 8119: 7970: 7941: 7783: 7769: 7565: 7416: 7336: 7273: 7226: 7112: 7051: 6845: 6798: 6779: 6574: 6540: 6509: 6493: 6312: 6177: 6163: 6098: 5825: 5807: 5789: 5753: 5713: 5708: 5694: 5461: 4566: 4558: 4353: 4107: 3992: 3943:

Covers authorship, plot, features and significance, "other", archival sources

3404: 3367: 3322: 3293: 3268: 3210: 3187: 3176: 3100: 2999: 2974: 2948: 2907: 2731: 2393: 2336: 2318: 2305: 2285: 2011: 1909: 1800: 1717: 1712: 1658: 1616: 1445: 1188: 1094: 1036: 1002: 966: 951: 943: 911: 881: 827: 803: 757: 648: 492: 435: 388: 8586:: keep T3, but remove the 7-day hold (making it an actual "speedy" criteria) 5333:

Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several

4037:

Thank you for your submission. However, to accept it, we would need several

2610:?) they're free to insert it: I certainly don't see consensus against it. – 10854: 10768: 10763: 10759: 10696: 10692: 10553: 10403: 10395: 10391: 10326: 10272: 10233: 10229: 10225: 10189: 10173: 10021: 9851: 9335:

I would consider (a) to be a test, and (b) to be a reasonable redirect (if

9113: 8952: 8565: 8561: 8557: 8465: 8245:

reasonable support it would be easy enough to do so. Thanks for the input.

8114: 7826: 7665:. Drafts of no value are properly dealt with by AfC processes. These are: 7376: 7174: 7047: 6944: 6913: 6773: 6734: 6710: 6702: 6688: 6660: 6570: 6517: 6469: 6391: 6349: 6260: 6102: 6022: 5964: 5929: 5891: 5846: 5800: 5634: 5600: 5399: 5355: 5338: 5334: 5302: 5284: 5249: 5201: 5160: 5119: 5078: 5037: 4997: 4992: 4955: 4915: 4875: 4835: 4815: 4795: 4790: 4756: 4675: 4635: 4593: 4506: 4478: 4453: 4441:

Need more dependent reliable sources and pls provide inline citation - see

4410: 4314: 4309: 4297:

Need more dependent reliable sources and pls provide inline citation - see

4266: 4224: 4185: 4059: 4042: 4038: 4006: 3951: 3909: 3867: 3818: 3783: 3776: 3734: 3690: 3648: 3557: 3381: 3343: 3299: 3077: 3012:

time. I am not sure if they patrol the CSD category though. —usernamekiran

2879: 2843: 2678: 2603: 2546: 2536: 2492: 2449: 2397: 2277: 2207: 2193: 2169: 2007: 1905: 1901: 1846: 1155: 1070: 947: 919: 823: 765: 761: 666: 657: 306: 280: 169: 9980:

Do redirects avoiding double redirects to deleted redirects fall under G8?

5841:

If "dfu" is not already one of those speedy-deletions that eligible for a

431:

G6 should not apply to anything with a non-trivial edit history. Does it?

9010: 8750: 8199: 8137:, that's a problematic battleground attitude that shouldn't be indulged. 7592: 7050:: accidental creation in the wrong namespace, i.e. routine housekeeping. 6062: 5350: 4950: 4321: 4134: 4095: 3602: 3121: 2599:

I've replaced the paragraph with the version discussed earlier this year

2165:

In other words, a dePRODded file should be taken to FFD, not tagged with

1869: 1501: 1425: 1395: 1370: 1355: 1319: 1304: 1252: 1208: 471: 382:

Redirection is out standard response to separate pages on teh same topic.

206: 155: 5510:

since many G13 deletions are based on the pages they are compiling like

5344:

Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in

5238:

Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in

5193:

What exists is a related article; not sure if myths deserve own articles

5152:

What exists is a related article; not sure if myths deserve own articles

5111:

What exists is a related article; not sure if myths deserve own articles

5070:

What exists is a related article; not sure if myths deserve own articles

4539:

Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in

4447:

Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in

4048:

Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in

3856:

Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in

3723:

Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in

3591:

Single general reference to entry specifically about article subject in

1351:

is actually more confusing than adding the deletion tag to the doc page.

10816:

from seven months ago. @(regulars here): Should we have something like

10621: 10563: 10414: 10390:

Putting the larger issue on hold for a moment, the recent deletion per

10350: 10197: 9531: 9511: 9446: 9089: 9031: 8971: 8138: 7894: 7787: 7446: 7399: 7380: 7006: 6980: 6333: 6141: 4079: 3179:

would be the best judge for their frequency since they are regulars at

2771: 2750: 2672:. I would be open to a 2-day waiting period with a no-questions-asked 1768: 1560: 528: 231:

is not erroneous, it is the original title/resulting redirect that is.

174: 9674:, Ah, my mistake on the talk page thing. You are correct on that. -- 7293:(I think is the name) status? Sets the clock from 6 months to 1 month? 3043:

Steps 3 and 4 repeat until we run out of patience and/or MfD the draft

1748:

was the name of the page for several years, so the redirect is also a

9936: 8910: 8902: 8729: 8634: 8430: 8299: 8269: 7632: 7574: 7466: 7431: 7298: 5999: 5936:

add a "full and valid fair-use rationale" or rewrite the existing one

5734: 4526: 4092:

Three general references and three additional references in footnotes

3150: 2929: 2634: 1928: 1883: 1020:

even technically possible) there, U1, U2 and U5 are not implausible.

756:

has not been deleted. It has no substantial edits. It was tagged for

10741:". Both of these speedy deletion reasons are similar to each other. 8518:("Duplication and hardcoded instances" of templates) be deprecated? 5768:

I created a page for me to work on this while I'm bored in class at

4418:

Draft:Hwamongjip (A Collection of Romance and Dream Journey Stories)

3165:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#G13 5 month notices

3040:

It isn't touched again for another 6 months, and it gets G13'd again

10675: 10657: 9161:

Obvious duplicates are already covered by other Speedy Criteria. --

6770:

I use db-author a lot and those pages are almost always deleted by

6604:

for, and not acting, if the target page is transcluded/linked from

5643: 5615: 5540: 5516: 5476: 4571: 4551: 4348: 4343:

15 footnotes, generally things that look like good-quality sources

4244: 3987: 3249: 3206: 3192: 2921: 2369:

from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so.

9112:

Ironic that this criterion is essentially a hardcoded instance of

6912:. If you revert, please start a discussion and ping me. Thanks. 5796:

Before proposing deprecation of "di-disputed fair use rationale" (

702:, but at the time of this writing, have not received an answer. -- 225:

Draft:Government spending and economic growth in the United States

10837:

What makes you think anyone would read it? Plugging the literal

10232:. After I closed the RFD, they re-deleted it under CSD criterion 10146:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#SP:Random

9949:

Thank you for your thumbs up. So I'll just go ahead and do it. ◅

6119:

Something needs to be done about the ambiguity between G3 and G10

4543:(but listed in "see also" section rather than references section) 3742:

Bang Hanrim jeon (方翰林傳 The Tale of the Woman Scholar Bang Gwanju)

1612: 114:

as applied to the draft namespace, specifically with regards to:

10220:

I don’t have an opinion on this, but noting for the record that

8316:

it is surprising the number of TfDs I see where people respond "

3338:

This is a placeholder message, feel free to remove this section.

1762:

disambiguation-like and there are articles where the content is

1555:

Practical question: How can you be sure that it has no incoming

10170:

Pinging the logged-in users who contributed to the linked RfD:

9431:

A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic

7991:

situations where deletion does not require explicit consensus.

6101:("unnecessary disambiguation pages") was recently split out of 5961:

with the condition that an appropriate FUR be immediately added

3523: 3149:

HasteurBot (RIP) notified one month out from a G13 deletion. --

644: 640: 636: 8633:

I would prefer B to A, and either strongly to C, per above. --

5678:

Now, I'm not suggesting that we have a list of every criteria

4255:

The material about the nature of her poetry must be referenced

10646:

wil confuse no reviewer. The problem is with a hypothetical

10340:

the plain soft redirect template is not used in the mainspace

7311:

I would support such a criteria, if only because there are a

6957:

WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#R2. Cross-namespace redirects

6560:

improvement, in term of due diligence, over manual action. –

4627:

21 footnotes and extensive sources listed in further reading.

9985:

the case, and if so, can this be clarified in the policy? --

5955:

As long as the dfu-tagged-and-bagged image can be summarily

2807:

NEWPAGE exists and is not a single-edit redirect. I slap a

2113:

disagreed with it (eg. edit summaries of "prod, Hoax" -: -->

1631:

It's the first one - the specific redirect I had in mind is

7514: 7289:

For AFC drafts, maybe something that plays off the new AFC

5752:, which was quoted about three months later in Archive 73. 4624:

The sections on published works, and awards, need citations

7323:

formatted properly). If they're not G2, G11, or G12 (e.g.

4045:. Feel free to resubmit after some changes have been made. 2380:

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

2367:

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

10735:

One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page

7891:

articlespace would be very problematic for many reasons.

5209:

Draft:Inhyeon wanghu jeon (仁顯王后傳, Story of Queen Inhyeon)

2804:

I have a page ready to be moved from OLDPAGE to NEWPAGE.

1838:

Can CSD still apply to pages whose PRODs were contested?

1069:

so tracking the move history may take some extra effort.

10140:

Do and/or should the R criteria apply to soft redirects?

9475:

Is there a simple explanation for, as being revealed at

8425:

arguing it makes the criterion effectively useless as a

9477:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1

8407:

I don't think anyone is saying that (I mean, I'm not).

8260:

I'd like an effective T3 preferably (as I expressed in

6234:

It turns out the template may not be needed after all.

5045:

Draft:Myth of Bak Hyeokgeose (Foundation Myth of Silla)

4988:

19 footnotes (made using etc. instead of <ref: -->

2973:

one more group of logs than with just a reverted move.

2794:

to do some types of "deletion via move" to avoid delays

798:

Just looking at that template specifically, there were

413:

anything with a non-trivial edit history. Does it? --

10057:

I think the implication is that C was somehow missed.

7463:

Imho, even MFDing such drafts is unnecessary busywork.

7000:

We certainly wouldn't want to say that redirects from

6459:

I'm asking administrators - would this be worth doing?

5836:

actual usage is clearly "fair use" then keep the file,

5168:

Draft:Myth of King Kim Su-ro (Foundation Myth of Gaya)

3453:

Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 65

2817:

on it asking it to be deleted to make way for a move.

2335:

Not really, because they are two different processes.

1448:

would be to this as a potential nominating process. ~

10839:

title of this section into the big honking search box

6900:) - NOTWEBHOST. I think both reflect "common sense." 3186:

I think this discussion has been held in the past at

9047:

as T3 is redundant to TfD as described by proposer.

8372:

the cat get shot down, I honestly don't think there

5633:

It's pretty obvious by looking at the deletion log,

2827:

Later, an administrator deletes the temporary page.

2629:

about the lack of a holding category, separate from

168:

Agree with SD0001 wrt duplicates. As for redirects,

10279:(which differs only in capitalization) was deleted 10003:In scenario X, page A is nominated because it's an 7517:. It's "a CSD criterion" or "some CSD criteria". -- 6446:

No move history at all (for keeping the bot simple)

2830:The only reasonable objections I can think of are: 9026:, obvious duplication should be speedy deletable. 7225:to get drafts explicitly covered under A7 and A9. 5127:Draft:Myth of Jumong (Foundation Myth of Goguryeo) 3807:The sections of works, and awards, need citations. 2906:sit for a day or two while it waits for an admin? 10479:New criterion proposed, for creations that avoid 10398:were sloppy. It should have been deleted per the 8283:likely be declining the same number of requests. 8111:Knowledge:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Alice_Coe 7568:exception, so you're free to change it yourself. 7375:rather than for drafts, along the lines of "Pure 2057:Well, CSD is even more so for deletions that are 1132:). I'll try to code that up tonight or tomorrow. 1056:I agree that the "U" criteria could apply to the 152:drafts which are near duplicates of another draft 10000:I think it depends on the rationale at the RFD. 9540:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/73.97.254.42 6237:I would like to change G7 to add the following: 4274:Draft:Choecheokjeon (최척전 The Tale of Choe Cheok) 572:I want to ask what is the minimum limit for the 9320:couldn't find the one they were looking for. – 7675:If the worthless draft is submitted, REJECT it. 2920:Here's a hypothetical. Some vandal moves, say, 311:IMO, you made the right call on both examples. 110:Hey folks, could I please get some guidance on 6231:I'm collaborating with someone on a template. 1440:This is a conversation for a different place, 10739:User request to delete pages in own userspace 9542:. Deleting obviously bogus GA reviews (i.e. 8705:is reasonable, as described by the proposer. 6283:This is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. 3917:Sodaeseongjeon (蘇大成傳 The Tale of So Daeseong) 2487:Wait, is this necessary? It seems to me like 1339:Most article pages transclude themselves via 9588:On occasion, yes. Usually, ill-advised. -- 6373:Straw poll - bot to do simple db-user speedy 3027:I see this sequence of events happen a lot: 1287:https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/pull/1121 8268:CFDS). (Or both tools would be nice. :D) -- 7501:"a CSD criteria"? That is bad grammar, the 5876:) has been cited as a reason to use "dfu". 5234:https://muse.jhu.edu/article/658635/summary 3053:remember it again in the future. Thoughts? 18:Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion 9873:Placeholder/explanatory text for templates 9339:thinks it would be useful, others might). 8314:there's already a seven-day waiting period 8262:Template talk:Db-meta#T3 and C1 categories 7786:is not a CSD criterion in itself. Regards 7111:Pretty clear opposition to this proposal. 6941:Pages that redirect to any other namespace 6894:I added some "things to consider" for U2 ( 5294:and Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Literature 3031:A user writes a draft and it gets declined 2627:Template_talk:Db-meta#T3_and_C1_categories 2541:I appreciate your point. You've swayed me 2213:prompt others to add to the rationale? -- 2203:have to do with speedy deletion? Doesn't 2141:A de-prodded article should not be tagged 7841:. Doesn't meet the "objective" criterion 7026:Except for user sandboxes, according to " 6017:improperly elsewhere without a valid FUR 1540:I did verify that no move is involved. -- 1528:R3 and malformed parenthetical qualifiers 1289:that will make Twinkle start doing this. 9609:, but that's the only one I can see. -- 7744:be used to delete some of these at MfD? 7591:How about "a number of CSD criterions"? 2707:Template:House of Hohenzollern (Prussia) 2703:Template:House of Hohenzollern (Germany) 1834:de-PRODded pages still eligible for CSD? 1657:, if such a redirect gets brought up to 9724:, uncontroversial maintenance for SPI. 9439:T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances 9429:We have several "duplicates" criteria: 4983:BLP without sufficient inline citations 4943:BLP without sufficient inline citations 4621:BLP without sufficient inline citations 4252:BLP without sufficient inline citations 3895:BLP without sufficient inline citations 3875:Pak ssi jeon (朴氏傳 The Tale of Lady Pak) 3804:BLP without sufficient inline citations 3762:BLP without sufficient inline citations 3676:BLP without sufficient inline citations 2870:This discussion has been publicized at 2201:Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale 2114:"deprod, I don't think this is a hoax" 14: 6778:so pinging him for his opinion on it. 6247:If there is more than one author, use 4371:(comment: "self-written vanity page") 4014:Jeon Uchi-jeon (The Tale of Jeon Uchi) 3826:Imjillok (壬辰錄 Record of the Imjin War) 3588:Need more source with inline citations 2036:The point about PROD is that it's for 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 10503:warranted and appropriate. Thoughts? 10343:(specialized templates are used, see 8540:duplications of another template, or 3023:Change how notifications work for G13 2231:(line d). Has anyone else notice it? 2116:(from someone other than the creator) 10723:The following discussion is closed. 10325:. For example: redirects covered by 10271:(I think) actually was eligible for 10024:) as essentially-the-same rationale. 8514:Should the speedy deletion criteria 8482: 8474:The following discussion is closed. 7702:. No redundant. Not objective. -- 7534:I think my meaning was still clear. 7128:The following discussion is closed. 7083:other example something that always 6244:Special case of more than one author 2246:WP:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#F7#d 985:The first four discussions I found ( 25: 9030:is ok too, given it's low usage. - 8018:Bollocks. But debunking the above, 7315:of absolutely pointless worse-than- 3037:Within hours, the author REFUNDs it 1536:I have a specific example at hand, 23: 9546:) seems like the same concept. -- 9483:running its own deletion process? 9137:is better for this kind of stuff. 9133:, or C as second choice. I think 8109:; I can't help but be reminded of 7740:I might be mistaken, but couldn't 2670:a 7 day waiting period is harmless 24: 10911: 6844:Oops, thanks for the correction. 6707:Agreed. That approach is safest. 5451:Somewhere to edit after the table 2926:Randy McRandolph murdered a child 2842:Thoughts? Did I miss anything? 1341:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration 768:tags were added by OP. Those two 10897:The discussion above is closed. 10224:was deleted under CSD criterion 9462:The discussion above is closed. 8486: 8213:The discussion above is closed. 7138: 6569:For what it's worth, db-user is 6377: 6222: 5770:User talk:67.86.76.249/CSD Index 5693:and easily collapsed. Thoughts? 2392:If anyone objects, feel free to 1746:Typhoon Mujigae (disambiguation) 1651:(+ 23:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)) 1588:(+ 21:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)) 1416: 1345:most CSD's are done with Twinkle 29: 10758:There are too many cases where 9505:project's context, and if it's 9471:Non standard deletion processes 7272:FWIW I'd support expanding A7. 5512:User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting 3549:27 footnotes at time of decline 3076:a link to how to get a refund. 754:Template:Technical non-redirect 223:when it was correctly moved to 10437:Ongoing RfC on the scope of G2 9732:) 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 8030:." (Additional related posts: 6897:) - nonexistent user, and U5 ( 5762:22:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 5743:21:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 5724:18:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 5703:17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5346:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 5292:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 5240:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 4541:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 4449:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 4305:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 4050:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 3858:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 3725:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 3638:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 3593:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture 3242:Yes, I have a discussion with 3017:03:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC) 3007:13:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2983:21:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2957:21:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2942:20:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2916:18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2897:16:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2861:16:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2782:17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 2766:19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2743:18:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC) 2720:16:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2696:13:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2662:08:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2615:13:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 2591:06:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 2577:22:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 2564:21:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 2530:21:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 2512:21:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 2345:11:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 2331:14:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2314:19:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2298:16:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2258:08:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 2241:02:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 2223:02:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 2185:02:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 2161:23:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2137:22:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2093:22:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2066:22:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2053:20:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2032:01:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2022:00:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 2006:I must strongly disagree with 2002:14:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1992:13:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1961:09:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1941:09:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1922:09:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1896:09:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1878:09:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1863:09:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1824:01:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 1809:13:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1794:15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1777:14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1726:12:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1692:23:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 1678:22:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 1510:02:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 1495:02:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 1470:01:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC) 13: 1: 10820:for this kind of proposal? -- 10632:19:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC) 10616:21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC) 10598:05:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 10572:05:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC) 10557:00:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 10546:00:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 10529:00:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 10513:23:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC) 10494:, where the correctly titled 10455:18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC) 10132:14:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 10108:09:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 10090:00:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC) 10067:22:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 10053:21:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 10044:21:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 9995:20:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC) 9968:18:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 9954:16:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 9945:14:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 9931:10:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 9887:18:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC) 9867:12:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC) 9844:00:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 9817:13:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 9802:13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 9781:13:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 9767:12:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 9534:, A similar thing happens at 9437:, and the one discussed here 9409:00:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 9384:15:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 9369:14:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 9349:19:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 9330:18:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 9309:02:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC) 9292:17:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 9280:07:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC) 9261:12:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 9238:03:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC) 9220:00:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 9005:09:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 8988:02:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 8961:19:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 8944:16:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 8927:09:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC) 8893:18:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 8870:14:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 8848:12:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 8831:09:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 8814:08:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 8782:02:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 8763:00:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 8742:22:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8715:21:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8698:21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8678:18:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8660:15:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8643:15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8629:15:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8606:15:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8596:Thank you for your thoughts. 8528:15:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 8507:00:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC) 8459:23:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC) 8439:18:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC) 8417:14:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC) 8403:13:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC) 8386:01:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC) 8364:01:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC) 8330:22:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC) 8308:20:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC) 8293:20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC) 8278:20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC) 8255:20:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC) 8084:23:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 8070:22:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 8056:21:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 8014:01:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 7979:18:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 7964:17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 7950:17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 7932:I'm actually leaning towards 7928:16:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 7911:07:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 7886:16:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 7868:12:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 7851:16:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 7834:19:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7812:20:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7798:18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7778:14:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7764:14:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7736:14:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7712:06:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7645:19:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7622:06:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7607:06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7587:05:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7557:21:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7530:20:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7475:18:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 7457:20:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7440:20:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7425:17:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7410:17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7389:15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7366:06:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC) 7345:14:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7307:14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7283:07:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7268:06:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7240:04:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7213:03:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7192:00:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 7167:23:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) 7098:23:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 7060:20:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 7042:20:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 7022:20:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 6996:20:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 6971:19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 6931:19:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 6884:02:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 6858:23:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6840:23:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6792:18:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6760:20:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6742:19:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6726:18:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6696:18:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6678:17:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6654:17:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6592:15:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6583:15:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6565:14:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6549:16:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6535:16:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6502:14:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6487:14:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6409:21:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC) 6367:17:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 6342:16:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 6321:15:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 6293:15:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 6278:15:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 6205:11:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC) 6094:Can creators remove G14 tags? 5390:Encylopedia of Korean Culture 5367:pre-1900 Korean literary work 5314:pre-1900 Korean literary work 5310:Yeowarok (The Story of Yeowa) 5213:pre-1900 Korean literary work 4518:pre-1900 Korean literary work 4422:pre-1900 Korean literary work 4278:pre-1900 Korean literary work 4018:pre-1900 Korean literary work 3963:Korean living literary critic 3959:Ku Jung-seo (literary critic) 3921:pre-1900 Korean literary work 3879:pre-1900 Korean literary work 3830:pre-1900 Korean literary work 3746:pre-1900 Korean literary work 3702:pre-1900 Korean literary work 3660:pre-1900 Korean literary work 3614:pre-1900 Korean literary work 3569:pre-1900 Korean literary work 2790:Explicitly recommending that 2481:03:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 2467:19:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 2444:23:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 2430:23:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 2415:20:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 2394:revert and ping me to discuss 2272:Can T3 deletions be refunded? 1444:, but I wonder how receptive 1436:14:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1404:22:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 1385:22:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 1364:19:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1335:19:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1313:18:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1299:18:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1283:Module:Sandbox/Jackmcbarn/csd 1269:18:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1240:15:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1225:Knowledge:Geonotice/list.json 1219:13:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1197:13:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1173:13:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1142:03:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1124:03:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1103:01:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1088:00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1045:00:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1030:23:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 1011:00:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 981:00:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 960:23:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 937:23:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 892:21:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 875:21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 852:23:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 812:23:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 794:23:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 749:23:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 724:23:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 683:14:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 661:13:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 652:12:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 630:11:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 613:10:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 585:10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC) 560:17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 542:16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 522:10:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 351:19:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 10716:17:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC) 10409:criteria for speedy deletion 10394:and subsequent deletion per 9748:02:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9682:02:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9667:02:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9649:02:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9634:02:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9617:02:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9598:02:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9584:01:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9569:01:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9554:01:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9527:00:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9499:00:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 9455:11:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 9204:20:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 9189:19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 9171:17:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 9154:04:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC) 9126:13:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 9105:00:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) 9081:22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 9060:11:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 9040:11:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 9019:09:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 8222:Spitballing - get rid of T3? 8208:09:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 8177:12:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 8147:10:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 8128:05:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 8098:00:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 7688:In mainspace, use A7 or A11. 7121:14:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC) 7028:WP:Cross-namespace redirects 6186:21:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 6172:20:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 6157:20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 6134:20:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 6114:16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC) 6086:17:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 6071:14:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 6055:20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 6040:13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 6008:11:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 5982:13:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 5951:09:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 5923:03:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 5909:22:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC) 5886:21:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC) 5864:20:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC) 5820:01:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC) 5782:15:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 4703:Advertisement; verifiability 3380:We can make a bot for that. 1737:List of storms named Mujigae 1257:User:Jackmcbarn/sandbox.json 918:which prompted the change. 335:G6 applying in this manner. 7: 10892:00:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC) 10873:00:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC) 10858:23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 10833:23:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 10801:22:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 10786:21:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 10753:21:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 10685:07:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC) 10667:07:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC) 10473:13:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 10431:15:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 10382:16:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 10367:16:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 10313:23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 10295:15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 10263:15:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 10248:15:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 10216:15:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 10165:14:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 8105:, I'm forced to agree with 5653:04:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 5625:04:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 5608:06:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC) 5588:23:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 5578:23:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 5566:04:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC) 5550:22:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 5526:22:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 5489:21:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 5470:21:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 4358:06:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 3997:06:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 3528:modern Korean literary work 3470:20:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 3428:21:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 3413:17:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 3399:13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 3376:01:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 3361:19:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3331:18:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3317:18:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3286:16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3259:05:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3238:04:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3219:16:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3202:03:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3159:02:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3145:00:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3130:00:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3109:00:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3095:00:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3063:00:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 1649:23:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 1627:22:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 1586:20:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 1571:18:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 1550:18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 503:23:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 486:04:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 461:05:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 446:04:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 423:23:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 399:22:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 327:21:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 298:18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 260:13:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 241:17:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 215:14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 200:13:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 185:06:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 164:06:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 146:05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 10: 10916: 10584:, and a formal process at 9653:That would be a mistake. 8028:repeating the conversation 7136: 6220: 4779:Not submitted, G13 deleted 4336:Not submitted, G11 deleted 4208:Not submitted, G13 deleted 4140:User:Justlettersandnumbers 4123:Not submitted, G13 deleted 4101:User:Justlettersandnumbers 3974:Not submitted, G13 deleted 3940:also needs inline sources. 2625:There was a discussion at 1067:without leaving a redirect 10642:For salted name changes, 9909:Exceptional circumstances 9898:Exceptional circumstances 9067:per nom as first choice; 8650:Per my comments above. -- 8592:: Status quo, do nothing. 8493:Consensus clearly favors 4197:modern Korean short story 1481:Part of me wants to just 906:is the proposed change. 568:RfC: Clarification for G5 10899:Please do not modify it. 10725:Please do not modify it. 10321:I would oppose a change 9464:Please do not modify it. 9224:The current language at 8476:Please do not modify it. 8215:Please do not modify it. 7130:Please do not modify it. 4362:Nominated G11 (spam) by 10490:; a current example is 9415:A few random comments: 9299:per the reasons above. 8580:: deprecate T3 entirely 7513:with the number of the 6019:for that particular use 4514:Draft:Isaenggyujangjeon 4155:User:Benlawrencejackson 4116:User:Benlawrencejackson 4075:User:Benlawrencejackson 3984:I have now accepted it 10648:Draft Ramy A. Khodier 10644:Draft:Ramy Khodeir (2) 10539:Draft:Ramy Khodeir (2) 10492:Draft:Ramy Khodeir (2) 9958:I like the new setup. 9734: 8550: 7356:was off the rails. -- 6435:page is a sub-page of 5363:Story of So Hyeonseong 4803:Draft:Min Gyeong-hyeon 2284:? Or must they go via 1900:All right. What about 1349:Module:Module wikitext 770:were removed by Pppery 639:' to 'she was born in 9830:Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1 9753:behind the IPs (i.e. 9715: 9544:Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1 9196:ProcrastinatingReader 8534: 8322:ProcrastinatingReader 8228:its tracking category 5261:Korean literary genre 5257:Pansori-based fiction 4717:User:Anthony Bradbury 4601:Draft:Kim Chong Kwang 4466:Draft:Kim Sa-i (Poet) 2323:ProcrastinatingReader 2290:ProcrastinatingReader 1112:or <noinclude: --> 898:New section - Modules 227:. In such cases, the 42:of past discussions. 9935:I like this plan. -- 9755:dynamic IP addresses 7698:Overall, this fails 6890:Changes to U2 and U5 6467:without much effort? 5395:User:UnitedStatesian 5298:User:UnitedStatesian 5245:User:UnitedStatesian 5197:User:UnitedStatesian 5156:User:UnitedStatesian 5115:User:UnitedStatesian 5086:Draft:Myth of Dangun 5074:User:UnitedStatesian 4923:Draft:Sohn Won-pyung 4883:Draft:Seong Mi-jeong 4843:Draft:Park Cheong-ho 4831:User:UnitedStatesian 4712:User:UnitedStatesian 4671:User:UnitedStatesian 4406:User:UnitedStatesian 4262:User:UnitedStatesian 4055:User:UnitedStatesian 4002:User:UnitedStatesian 3947:User:UnitedStatesian 3905:User:UnitedStatesian 3772:User:UnitedStatesian 3644:User:UnitedStatesian 3598:User:UnitedStatesian 3553:User:UnitedStatesian 3074:maybe in small print 2420:No objections here. 1391:Module:Documentation 1130:Module:Documentation 764:, and then test and 10737:", while U1 reads " 10533:Salting is largely 10281:nearly 11 years ago 10267:...Wait, actually, 9657:should be used. -- 8542:hardcoded instances 8536:Templates that are 7940:along those lines. 7350:Draft:Kartick Ghosh 7325:Draft:Kartick Ghosh 5665:List of discussions 5270:User:Sagotreespirit 4963:Draft:Yeom Seungsuk 4911:User:Eternal Shadow 4643:Draft:Kim Joong-sik 4522:User:Serendipity217 4385:User:Serendipity217 4330:User:Serendipity217 3487: 2726:A7 School exemption 2489:WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP 1285:. I also submitted 942:Modules fall under 10726: 10496:Draft:Ramy Khodeir 10300:Fastily’s response 9711:Past practice, eg 8477: 7354:Native advertising 7131: 5788:File PROD vs dfu ( 5407:Draft:Kim Kyoungin 5281:Naver Encyclopedia 5222:User:GeneralPoxter 5176:User:GoldenAlpha77 5135:User:GoldenAlpha77 5094:User:GoldenAlpha77 5053:User:GoldenAlpha77 5033:User:Nnadigoodluck 5018:User:KartikeyaS343 5013:User:GoldenAlpha77 5009:dead Korean writer 4971:User:GoldenAlpha77 4936:User:SportingFlyer 4931:User:GoldenAlpha77 4896:User:Theroadislong 4891:User:GoldenAlpha77 4764:Draft:Kim Myung-su 4752:User:Nnadigoodluck 4737:User:KartikeyaS343 4724:Draft:Kim Youn Bae 4589:User:Nnadigoodluck 4563:Dead Korean writer 4547:User:Nnadigoodluck 4502:User:Nnadigoodluck 4426:User:GoldenAlpha77 4377:Draft:Ham Seong-ho 4364:User:Moonythedwarf 4282:User:GoldenAlpha77 4240:User:GoldenAlpha77 4220:User:Nnadigoodluck 4181:User:Nnadigoodluck 4160:User:JavaHurricane 4147:Dokkaebi bangmangi 3788:dead Korean author 3486: 2473:Reasonable. · · · 2381: 2368: 2276:Can deletions per 1735:. The page now at 910:is the comment by 331:In other words, I 10784: 10783: 10724: 10429: 10365: 9919:Obsolete criteria 9913:Obsolete criteria 9902:Obsolete criteria 9605:, Hmmm. I found 9422:A few of the "A" 9366: 8986: 8909: 8891: 8867: 8812: 8739: 8727: 8512: 8511: 8475: 8362: 7909: 7658: 7657: 7642: 7630: 7584: 7572: 7327:), we are almost 7237: 7190: 7189: 7129: 6929: 6928: 6676: 6675: 6533: 6532: 6513: 6485: 6484: 6407: 6406: 6383:Request withdrawn 6365: 6364: 6276: 6275: 6038: 6037: 5980: 5979: 5907: 5906: 5862: 5861: 5720:DESiegel Contribs 5447: 5446: 5443: 5442: 5411:Korean writer BLP 5323:User:Taewangkorea 4967:Korean writer BLP 4927:Korean writer BLP 4887:Korean writer BLP 4851:User:Minheepark33 4847:Korean writer BLP 4811:User:Minheepark33 4807:Korean writer BLP 4768:Korean writer BLP 4728:Korean writer BLP 4691:User:Minheepark33 4687:Korean writer BLP 4683:Draft:Kim Jun Tae 4651:User:Minheepark33 4647:Korean writer BLP 4609:User:Minheepark33 4605:Korean writer BLP 4470:Korean writer BLP 4381:Korean writer BLP 4326:Korean writer BLP 4236:Korean writer BLP 4027:User:Taewangkorea 3925:User:Minheepark33 3883:User:Minheepark33 3834:User:Minheepark33 3792:User:Minheepark33 3750:User:Minheepark33 3706:User:Minheepark33 3664:User:Minheepark33 3623:User:Hughesdarren 3618:User:Minheepark33 3610:Im Gyeongeop jeon 3573:User:Minheepark33 3532:User:Minheepark33 3397: 3396: 3359: 3358: 3315: 3314: 3119: 3093: 3092: 3075: 2904:absolutely cannot 2899: 2895: 2894: 2859: 2858: 2694: 2693: 2621:T3 waiting period 2562: 2561: 2497:GeneralNotability 2465: 2464: 2422:GeneralNotability 2413: 2412: 2379: 2366: 2280:be undeleted via 2018:DESiegel Contribs 1904:(including dfu), 1623:DESiegel Contribs 1468: 1171: 1170: 1086: 1085: 935: 934: 888:DESiegel Contribs 731:GeneralNotability 690:GeneralNotability 675:GeneralNotability 574:substantial edits 499:DESiegel Contribs 442:DESiegel Contribs 395:DESiegel Contribs 296: 295: 273:Draft:John Smitth 269:Draft:John Smitth 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 10907: 10824: 10811: 10808:Seventyfiveyears 10773: 10772: 10745: 10744:Seventyfiveyears 10629: 10624: 10569: 10535:a legacy feature 10425: 10419: 10412: 10361: 10355: 10348: 10342: 10205: 10182:Seventyfiveyears 10153:WP:CSD#Redirects 10121: 10115: 10019: 10013: 9855: 9841: 9840: 9837: 9757:being dynamic). 9524: 9406: 9362: 9274: 9235: 9234: 9217: 9216: 9213: 9186: 9185: 9152: 9102: 9097: 9058: 8982: 8976: 8969: 8958: 8907: 8900:, per Primefac. 8881: 8863: 8805: 8802: 8796: 8779: 8778: 8775: 8758: 8740: 8737: 8736: 8734: 8725: 8696: 8490: 8483: 8394: 8346: 8345: 8312:As an aside, re 8239: 8233: 8144: 7905: 7899: 7892: 7829: 7795: 7790: 7761: 7753: 7733: 7729: 7724: 7643: 7640: 7639: 7637: 7628: 7599: 7585: 7582: 7581: 7579: 7570: 7554: 7546: 7521: 7489: 7488: 7454: 7449: 7407: 7402: 7265: 7257: 7233: 7202: 7179: 7178: 7156: 7142: 7141: 7034: 7033:Seventyfiveyears 7019: 7014: 6993: 6988: 6977:Seventyfiveyears 6963: 6962:Seventyfiveyears 6918: 6917: 6903:Since these are 6881: 6880: 6877: 6868:We used to have 6855: 6848: 6831: 6822: 6810: 6802: 6789: 6782: 6777: 6737: 6714: 6706: 6691: 6665: 6664: 6643: 6637: 6633: 6627: 6623: 6617: 6613: 6607: 6522: 6521: 6504: 6474: 6473: 6424: 6418: 6396: 6395: 6381: 6380: 6354: 6353: 6310: 6306: 6300: 6265: 6264: 6250: 6226: 6225: 6154: 6107:a recent example 6027: 6026: 5969: 5968: 5942: 5933: 5896: 5895: 5851: 5850: 5805: 5799: 5731: 5692: 5686: 5651: 5623: 5603: 5548: 5524: 5495:the Deletion log 5371:User:Chaekbeolle 5335:reliable sources 5318:User:Chaekbeolle 5265:User:Chaekbeolle 5005:Draft:Yoo Juhyun 4232:Draft:An Heon-mi 4201:User:Shinewer01 4039:reliable sources 4022:User:Chaekbeolle 3967:User:Chaekbeolle 3698:Hong Gyewol jeon 3565:Jin Daebang jeon 3509:Decline comments 3488: 3485: 3475: 3474: 3386: 3385: 3348: 3347: 3304: 3303: 3297: 3276: 3274: 3257: 3200: 3113: 3082: 3081: 3073: 2884: 2883: 2866: 2848: 2847: 2816: 2810: 2779: 2774: 2763: 2683: 2682: 2658: 2653: 2551: 2550: 2540: 2454: 2453: 2402: 2401: 2383: 2370: 2212: 2206: 2198: 2192: 2174: 2168: 2150: 2144: 2044: 1987: 1981: 1978: 1975: 1851: 1845: 1774: 1757: 1751: 1633:Punch-Out!! (NES 1568: 1563: 1480: 1452: 1451: 1428: 1420: 1419: 1374: 1323: 1250: 1231: 1211: 1186: 1180: 1160: 1159: 1152: 1075: 1074: 1055: 970: 924: 923: 866: 847: 841: 838: 835: 789: 783: 780: 777: 738: 719: 713: 710: 707: 693: 619:substantial edit 608: 602: 599: 596: 579: 478: 343: 319: 310: 285: 284: 182: 177: 143: 142: 139: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 10915: 10914: 10910: 10909: 10908: 10906: 10905: 10904: 10903: 10902: 10822: 10805: 10743: 10729: 10720: 10719: 10718: 10701: 10627: 10622: 10608:UnitedStatesian 10567: 10505:UnitedStatesian 10484: 10453: 10439: 10428: 10423: 10415: 10364: 10359: 10351: 10338: 10337:. Furthermore, 10171: 10142: 10119: 10113: 10017: 10011: 9982: 9875: 9849: 9838: 9835: 9834: 9512: 9473: 9468: 9467: 9404: 9367: 9317: 9270: 9232: 9230: 9214: 9211: 9210: 9183: 9181: 9163:Asmodea Oaktree 9138: 9124: 9100: 9090: 9048: 8985: 8980: 8972: 8956: 8868: 8840:Graeme Bartlett 8800: 8794: 8776: 8773: 8772: 8756: 8730: 8728: 8724: 8687: 8613: 8480: 8470: 8392: 8343: 8237: 8231: 8224: 8219: 8218: 8142: 8107:Fuhghettaboutit 8090:Fuhghettaboutit 8048:Fuhghettaboutit 7908: 7903: 7895: 7878:Fuhghettaboutit 7860:Graeme Bartlett 7827: 7793: 7788: 7757: 7749: 7731: 7727: 7722: 7659: 7633: 7631: 7627: 7593: 7575: 7573: 7569: 7548: 7536: 7519: 7494: 7452: 7447: 7405: 7400: 7259: 7247: 7238: 7211: 7200: 7165: 7154: 7148: 7147: 7139: 7134: 7125: 7124: 7123: 7106: 7032: 7017: 7007: 6991: 6981: 6961: 6938: 6905:recommendations 6892: 6878: 6875: 6874: 6851: 6846: 6829: 6816: 6804: 6796: 6785: 6780: 6771: 6752:Fuhghettaboutit 6735: 6718:Fuhghettaboutit 6708: 6700: 6689: 6646:Fuhghettaboutit 6641: 6635: 6631: 6625: 6621: 6615: 6611: 6605: 6602:what links here 6422: 6416: 6378: 6375: 6308: 6304: 6298: 6248: 6229: 6228: 6223: 6219: 6170: 6142: 6121: 6096: 5940: 5927: 5803: 5797: 5794: 5750:this discussion 5729: 5721: 5690: 5684: 5667: 5642: 5614: 5601: 5539: 5515: 5453: 5448: 5435:User:Nathan2055 4976:User:Whispering 4856:User:Cerebellum 4772:User:Sojungyang 4656:User:Praxidicae 4614:User:MurielMary 4459:User:Cwmhiraeth 4431:User:Cassiopeia 4287:User:Cassiopeia 4193:The Rainy Spell 4151:Korean folktale 4112:Korean folktale 4071:Korean folktale 3930:User:Praxidicae 3888:User:MurielMary 3797:User:MurielMary 3755:User:MurielMary 3711:User:Cassiopeia 3669:User:MurielMary 3578:User:Cassiopeia 3480: 3448: 3291: 3272: 3271: 3248: 3230:Graeme Bartlett 3191: 3173:Graeme Bartlett 3127: 3126:it has begun... 3025: 2940: 2814: 2808: 2796: 2777: 2772: 2751: 2741: 2728: 2656: 2651: 2633:and similar to 2623: 2585:Peter Southwood 2534: 2475:Peter Southwood 2378: 2365: 2357: 2274: 2210: 2204: 2196: 2190: 2172: 2166: 2148: 2142: 2059:uncontroversial 2042: 2038:uncontroversial 2019: 1985: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1939: 1894: 1849: 1843: 1836: 1769: 1755: 1749: 1731:The context is 1710: 1624: 1566: 1561: 1559:links? Regards 1530: 1507: 1506:it has begun... 1474: 1449: 1426: 1417: 1401: 1400:it has begun... 1368: 1361: 1360:it has begun... 1317: 1310: 1309:it has begun... 1244: 1229: 1209: 1184: 1178: 1146: 1058:Module:Sandbox/ 1049: 964: 900: 889: 864: 845: 839: 836: 833: 787: 781: 778: 775: 728: 717: 711: 708: 705: 687: 624:Peter Southwood 606: 600: 597: 594: 577: 570: 500: 472: 443: 406:Oppose G6 creep 396: 337: 313: 304: 233:UnitedStatesian 192:UnitedStatesian 180: 175: 140: 137: 136: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 10913: 10896: 10895: 10894: 10877: 10876: 10875: 10860: 10803: 10788: 10730: 10721: 10705: 10704: 10703: 10702: 10700: 10689: 10688: 10687: 10652: 10651: 10639: 10638: 10637: 10636: 10635: 10634: 10601: 10600: 10577: 10576: 10575: 10574: 10550: 10549: 10548: 10543:Uanfala (talk) 10483: 10477: 10476: 10475: 10451:JJP... master? 10449: 10438: 10435: 10434: 10433: 10421: 10400:rfd discussion 10387: 10386: 10385: 10384: 10357: 10323:in that manner 10319: 10318: 10317: 10316: 10315: 10297: 10218: 10186:LaundryPizza03 10141: 10138: 10137: 10136: 10135: 10134: 10092: 10074: 10073: 10072: 10071: 10070: 10069: 10050:Uanfala (talk) 10027: 10026: 10025: 10008: 9981: 9978: 9977: 9976: 9975: 9974: 9973: 9972: 9971: 9970: 9924: 9923: 9922: 9916: 9879:SoledadKabocha 9874: 9871: 9870: 9869: 9826: 9825: 9824: 9823: 9822: 9821: 9820: 9819: 9789: 9787: 9783: 9736: 9708: 9707: 9703: 9702: 9701: 9700: 9699: 9698: 9697: 9696: 9695: 9694: 9693: 9692: 9691: 9690: 9689: 9688: 9687: 9686: 9685: 9684: 9472: 9469: 9461: 9460: 9459: 9458: 9457: 9443: 9442: 9427: 9420: 9412: 9411: 9391: 9390: 9389: 9388: 9387: 9386: 9361: 9316: 9313: 9312: 9311: 9294: 9289:Uanfala (talk) 9282: 9263: 9246: 9245: 9244: 9243: 9242: 9241: 9240: 9173: 9156: 9128: 9122:JJP... master? 9120: 9107: 9083: 9062: 9042: 9021: 9007: 8990: 8978: 8963: 8946: 8929: 8895: 8877:per Vanisaac. 8872: 8862: 8850: 8833: 8816: 8784: 8765: 8744: 8717: 8700: 8680: 8662: 8645: 8631: 8612: 8609: 8594: 8593: 8587: 8581: 8510: 8509: 8495:Deprecating T3 8491: 8481: 8472: 8471: 8469: 8468:be deprecated? 8462: 8446: 8445: 8444: 8443: 8442: 8441: 8428: 8424: 8419: 8388: 8336: 8335: 8334: 8333: 8332: 8310: 8223: 8220: 8212: 8211: 8210: 8193: 8192: 8191: 8190: 8189: 8188: 8187: 8186: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8182: 8181: 8180: 8179: 8164: 8163: 8162: 8159: 8156: 8149: 8100: 8072: 7998:WP:IARFREQUENT 7930: 7913: 7901: 7888: 7870: 7853: 7836: 7820: 7819: 7818: 7817: 7816: 7815: 7814: 7738: 7715: 7714: 7695: 7694: 7690: 7689: 7686: 7682: 7681: 7680: 7679: 7676: 7673: 7667: 7666: 7656: 7655: 7654: 7653: 7652: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7647: 7609: 7559: 7496: 7495: 7492: 7487: 7486: 7485: 7484: 7483: 7482: 7481: 7480: 7479: 7478: 7477: 7427: 7371: 7370: 7369: 7368: 7309: 7294: 7287: 7286: 7285: 7232: 7218: 7217: 7216: 7215: 7205: 7159: 7137: 7135: 7126: 7110: 7109: 7108: 7107: 7105: 7102: 7101: 7100: 7068: 7067: 7066: 7065: 7064: 7063: 7062: 6951:would usually 6949:Administrators 6937: 6934: 6891: 6888: 6887: 6886: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6803:This is about 6768: 6767: 6766: 6765: 6764: 6763: 6762: 6748:it does happen 6682: 6681: 6680: 6598: 6597: 6596: 6595: 6594: 6589:Uanfala (talk) 6562:Uanfala (talk) 6556: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6552: 6551: 6465:and maintained 6452: 6451: 6447: 6444: 6433: 6414: 6374: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6346: 6345: 6344: 6326: 6325: 6324: 6323: 6253: 6252: 6245: 6221: 6218: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6212: 6211: 6210: 6209: 6208: 6207: 6193:Rehavam Ze'evi 6166: 6126:4thfile4thrank 6120: 6117: 6111:Uanfala (talk) 6095: 6092: 6091: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6059: 6058: 6057: 6042: 5992: 5991: 5990: 5989: 5988: 5987: 5986: 5985: 5984: 5959:ED on request 5925: 5839: 5832: 5793: 5786: 5785: 5784: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5726: 5719: 5666: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5656: 5655: 5638: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5585:Uanfala (talk) 5580: 5575:Uanfala (talk) 5570: 5569: 5568: 5503: 5499: 5452: 5449: 5445: 5444: 5441: 5440: 5437: 5432: 5430: 5428: 5425: 5422: 5420:User:Sulfurboy 5417: 5415:User:Seray Lim 5412: 5409: 5403: 5402: 5397: 5392: 5386: 5384: 5381: 5378: 5376:User:Juan90264 5373: 5368: 5365: 5359: 5358: 5353: 5348: 5342: 5331: 5328: 5325: 5320: 5315: 5312: 5306: 5305: 5300: 5295: 5288: 5278: 5275: 5272: 5267: 5262: 5259: 5253: 5252: 5247: 5242: 5236: 5230: 5227: 5224: 5219: 5217:User:Seray Lim 5214: 5211: 5205: 5204: 5199: 5194: 5191: 5189: 5186: 5183: 5181:User:AngusWOOF 5178: 5173: 5170: 5164: 5163: 5158: 5153: 5150: 5148: 5145: 5142: 5140:User:AngusWOOF 5137: 5132: 5129: 5123: 5122: 5117: 5112: 5109: 5107: 5104: 5101: 5099:User:AngusWOOF 5096: 5091: 5088: 5082: 5081: 5076: 5071: 5068: 5066: 5063: 5060: 5058:User:AngusWOOF 5055: 5050: 5047: 5041: 5040: 5035: 5030: 5028: 5026: 5023: 5020: 5015: 5010: 5007: 5001: 5000: 4995: 4990: 4986: 4984: 4981: 4978: 4973: 4968: 4965: 4959: 4958: 4953: 4948: 4946: 4944: 4941: 4938: 4933: 4928: 4925: 4919: 4918: 4913: 4908: 4906: 4904: 4901: 4898: 4893: 4888: 4885: 4879: 4878: 4873: 4871:User:ThelmaCow 4868: 4866: 4864: 4861: 4858: 4853: 4848: 4845: 4839: 4838: 4833: 4828: 4826: 4824: 4821: 4818: 4813: 4808: 4805: 4799: 4798: 4793: 4788: 4785: 4783: 4780: 4777: 4774: 4769: 4766: 4760: 4759: 4754: 4749: 4747: 4745: 4742: 4739: 4734: 4732:User:Seray Lim 4729: 4726: 4720: 4719: 4714: 4709: 4707: 4704: 4701: 4698: 4696:User:AngusWOOF 4693: 4688: 4685: 4679: 4678: 4673: 4668: 4666: 4664: 4661: 4658: 4653: 4648: 4645: 4639: 4638: 4633: 4631:User:Squeeps10 4628: 4625: 4622: 4619: 4616: 4611: 4606: 4603: 4597: 4596: 4591: 4586: 4583: 4580: 4577: 4574: 4569: 4564: 4561: 4555: 4554: 4549: 4544: 4537: 4535: 4532: 4529: 4524: 4519: 4516: 4510: 4509: 4504: 4499: 4497: 4487: 4484: 4481: 4476: 4474:User:Seray Lim 4471: 4468: 4462: 4461: 4456: 4451: 4445: 4439: 4436: 4433: 4428: 4423: 4420: 4414: 4413: 4408: 4403: 4401: 4398: 4395: 4392: 4390:User:AngusWOOF 4387: 4382: 4379: 4373: 4372: 4369:User:Jimfbleak 4366: 4360: 4341: 4339: 4337: 4334: 4332: 4327: 4324: 4318: 4317: 4312: 4307: 4301: 4295: 4292: 4289: 4284: 4279: 4276: 4270: 4269: 4264: 4259: 4256: 4253: 4250: 4247: 4242: 4237: 4234: 4228: 4227: 4222: 4217: 4214: 4212: 4209: 4206: 4203: 4198: 4195: 4189: 4188: 4183: 4178: 4175: 4168: 4165: 4162: 4157: 4152: 4149: 4143: 4142: 4137: 4132: 4129: 4127: 4124: 4121: 4118: 4113: 4110: 4104: 4103: 4098: 4093: 4090: 4088: 4085: 4082: 4077: 4072: 4069: 4067:Saekki seo bal 4063: 4062: 4057: 4052: 4046: 4035: 4032: 4029: 4024: 4019: 4016: 4010: 4009: 4004: 3999: 3980: 3978: 3975: 3972: 3969: 3964: 3961: 3955: 3954: 3949: 3944: 3941: 3938: 3935: 3932: 3927: 3922: 3919: 3913: 3912: 3907: 3902: 3899: 3896: 3893: 3890: 3885: 3880: 3877: 3871: 3870: 3865: 3863:User:Squeeps10 3860: 3854: 3847: 3844: 3841: 3839:User:Dan arndt 3836: 3831: 3828: 3822: 3821: 3816: 3814:User:Squeeps10 3811: 3808: 3805: 3802: 3799: 3794: 3789: 3786: 3780: 3779: 3774: 3769: 3766: 3763: 3760: 3757: 3752: 3747: 3744: 3738: 3737: 3732: 3730:User:Squeeps10 3727: 3721: 3719: 3716: 3713: 3708: 3703: 3700: 3694: 3693: 3688: 3686:User:Squeeps10 3683: 3680: 3677: 3674: 3671: 3666: 3661: 3658: 3656:Choe Goun jeon 3652: 3651: 3646: 3641: 3634: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3620: 3615: 3612: 3606: 3605: 3600: 3595: 3589: 3586: 3583: 3580: 3575: 3570: 3567: 3561: 3560: 3555: 3550: 3547: 3545: 3542: 3539: 3537:User:Sulfurboy 3534: 3529: 3526: 3520: 3519: 3516: 3513: 3510: 3507: 3506:Decline reason 3504: 3501: 3498: 3495: 3492: 3482: 3481: 3479:Enormous table 3478: 3473: 3447: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3184: 3168: 3147: 3132: 3125: 3111: 3097: 3045: 3044: 3041: 3038: 3035: 3032: 3024: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3009: 3004:Uanfala (talk) 2987: 2986: 2985: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2934: 2840: 2839: 2835: 2795: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2735: 2727: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2698: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2612:Uanfala (talk) 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2574:Uanfala (talk) 2532: 2515: 2514: 2509:Uanfala (talk) 2484: 2483: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2432: 2386: 2385: 2372: 2371: 2356: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2273: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2139: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2063:Uanfala (talk) 2029:Uanfala (talk) 2017: 2004: 1999:Uanfala (talk) 1994: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1933: 1888: 1880: 1835: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1779: 1709: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1684:SoledadKabocha 1675:Uanfala (talk) 1655:SoledadKabocha 1641:SoledadKabocha 1622: 1605:Example (kind) 1597:Example (type) 1578:SoledadKabocha 1542:SoledadKabocha 1529: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1505: 1424:Great work! – 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1399: 1359: 1352: 1308: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1255:does not list 1205: 1203: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1047: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 899: 896: 895: 894: 887: 877: 856: 855: 854: 822:Of course, if 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 663: 654: 632: 615: 578: 569: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 524: 507: 506: 505: 498: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 441: 403: 402: 401: 394: 384: 383: 380: 377: 373: 369: 366: 363: 355: 354: 353: 301: 300: 264: 263: 262: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 166: 131: 130: 123: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10912: 10900: 10893: 10889: 10885: 10881: 10878: 10874: 10870: 10866: 10861: 10859: 10856: 10852: 10848: 10844: 10840: 10836: 10835: 10834: 10830: 10826: 10819: 10815: 10809: 10804: 10802: 10798: 10794: 10789: 10787: 10781: 10777: 10770: 10765: 10761: 10757: 10756: 10755: 10754: 10751: 10749: 10740: 10736: 10728: 10717: 10713: 10709: 10698: 10694: 10686: 10682: 10678: 10677: 10671: 10670: 10669: 10668: 10664: 10660: 10659: 10649: 10645: 10641: 10640: 10633: 10630: 10625: 10619: 10618: 10617: 10613: 10609: 10605: 10604: 10603: 10602: 10599: 10595: 10591: 10587: 10583: 10579: 10578: 10573: 10570: 10565: 10560: 10559: 10558: 10555: 10551: 10547: 10544: 10540: 10536: 10532: 10531: 10530: 10526: 10522: 10517: 10516: 10515: 10514: 10510: 10506: 10501: 10497: 10493: 10489: 10482: 10474: 10470: 10466: 10462: 10459: 10458: 10457: 10456: 10452: 10448: 10447:JJP...MASTER! 10444: 10432: 10426: 10420: 10418: 10410: 10405: 10401: 10397: 10393: 10389: 10388: 10383: 10379: 10375: 10370: 10369: 10368: 10362: 10356: 10354: 10346: 10341: 10336: 10332: 10328: 10324: 10320: 10314: 10311: 10310: 10306: 10305: 10301: 10298: 10296: 10293: 10292: 10288: 10287: 10282: 10278: 10274: 10270: 10266: 10265: 10264: 10260: 10256: 10251: 10250: 10249: 10246: 10245: 10241: 10240: 10235: 10231: 10227: 10223: 10219: 10217: 10213: 10209: 10203: 10199: 10195: 10191: 10187: 10183: 10179: 10175: 10169: 10168: 10167: 10166: 10162: 10158: 10154: 10149: 10147: 10133: 10129: 10125: 10118: 10111: 10110: 10109: 10105: 10101: 10097: 10093: 10091: 10087: 10083: 10079: 10076: 10075: 10068: 10064: 10060: 10056: 10055: 10054: 10051: 10047: 10046: 10045: 10041: 10037: 10032: 10028: 10023: 10016: 10009: 10006: 10002: 10001: 9999: 9998: 9997: 9996: 9992: 9988: 9969: 9965: 9961: 9957: 9956: 9955: 9952: 9948: 9947: 9946: 9942: 9938: 9934: 9933: 9932: 9929: 9925: 9920: 9917: 9914: 9910: 9906: 9905: 9903: 9899: 9895: 9891: 9890: 9889: 9888: 9884: 9880: 9868: 9864: 9860: 9853: 9848: 9847: 9846: 9845: 9842: 9831: 9818: 9814: 9810: 9805: 9804: 9803: 9800: 9799: 9798: 9790: 9788: 9784: 9782: 9778: 9774: 9770: 9769: 9768: 9765: 9764: 9763: 9756: 9751: 9750: 9749: 9745: 9741: 9737: 9733: 9731: 9727: 9723: 9719: 9718:speedy delete 9714: 9710: 9709: 9705: 9704: 9683: 9680: 9677: 9673: 9670: 9669: 9668: 9664: 9660: 9656: 9652: 9651: 9650: 9647: 9644: 9640: 9637: 9636: 9635: 9631: 9627: 9622: 9620: 9619: 9618: 9615: 9612: 9608: 9604: 9601: 9600: 9599: 9595: 9591: 9587: 9586: 9585: 9582: 9579: 9575: 9572: 9571: 9570: 9566: 9562: 9557: 9556: 9555: 9552: 9549: 9545: 9541: 9537: 9533: 9530: 9529: 9528: 9525: 9523: 9519: 9515: 9508: 9503: 9502: 9501: 9500: 9496: 9492: 9487: 9484: 9482: 9478: 9465: 9456: 9452: 9448: 9445: 9444: 9440: 9436: 9435:F1. Redundant 9432: 9428: 9425: 9421: 9417: 9416: 9414: 9413: 9410: 9407: 9401: 9397: 9393: 9392: 9385: 9381: 9377: 9372: 9371: 9370: 9365: 9360: 9357: 9352: 9351: 9350: 9346: 9342: 9338: 9334: 9333: 9332: 9331: 9327: 9323: 9310: 9306: 9302: 9298: 9295: 9293: 9290: 9286: 9283: 9281: 9278: 9275: 9273: 9267: 9264: 9262: 9259: 9258: 9257: 9250: 9247: 9239: 9236: 9227: 9223: 9222: 9221: 9218: 9207: 9206: 9205: 9201: 9197: 9192: 9191: 9190: 9187: 9177: 9174: 9172: 9168: 9164: 9160: 9157: 9155: 9150: 9147: 9144: 9143: 9136: 9132: 9129: 9127: 9123: 9119: 9118:JJP...MASTER! 9115: 9111: 9108: 9106: 9103: 9098: 9096: 9095: 9087: 9084: 9082: 9078: 9074: 9070: 9066: 9063: 9061: 9056: 9052: 9046: 9043: 9041: 9037: 9033: 9029: 9025: 9022: 9020: 9016: 9012: 9008: 9006: 9002: 8998: 8994: 8991: 8989: 8983: 8977: 8975: 8967: 8964: 8962: 8959: 8954: 8950: 8947: 8945: 8941: 8937: 8933: 8930: 8928: 8924: 8921: 8918: 8915: 8912: 8905: 8904: 8899: 8896: 8894: 8889: 8885: 8880: 8876: 8873: 8871: 8866: 8861: 8858: 8854: 8851: 8849: 8845: 8841: 8837: 8834: 8832: 8828: 8824: 8820: 8817: 8815: 8811: 8808: 8804: 8803: 8798: 8797: 8788: 8785: 8783: 8780: 8769: 8766: 8764: 8760: 8759: 8752: 8748: 8745: 8743: 8735: 8733: 8721: 8718: 8716: 8712: 8708: 8704: 8701: 8699: 8694: 8691: 8684: 8681: 8679: 8675: 8671: 8666: 8663: 8661: 8657: 8653: 8649: 8646: 8644: 8640: 8636: 8632: 8630: 8626: 8622: 8618: 8615: 8614: 8608: 8607: 8603: 8599: 8591: 8588: 8585: 8582: 8579: 8576: 8575: 8574: 8571: 8567: 8563: 8559: 8555: 8549: 8547: 8543: 8539: 8533: 8530: 8529: 8525: 8521: 8517: 8508: 8504: 8500: 8496: 8492: 8489: 8485: 8484: 8479: 8467: 8461: 8460: 8456: 8452: 8440: 8436: 8432: 8429:criterion. -- 8426: 8422: 8420: 8418: 8414: 8410: 8406: 8405: 8404: 8400: 8396: 8389: 8387: 8383: 8379: 8375: 8371: 8367: 8366: 8365: 8361: 8359: 8355: 8351: 8341: 8337: 8331: 8327: 8323: 8319: 8318:Speedy delete 8315: 8311: 8309: 8305: 8301: 8296: 8295: 8294: 8290: 8286: 8281: 8280: 8279: 8275: 8271: 8267: 8263: 8259: 8258: 8257: 8256: 8252: 8248: 8243: 8236: 8229: 8216: 8209: 8205: 8201: 8197: 8194: 8178: 8174: 8170: 8165: 8160: 8157: 8154: 8153: 8150: 8148: 8145: 8140: 8136: 8131: 8130: 8129: 8125: 8121: 8116: 8112: 8108: 8104: 8101: 8099: 8095: 8091: 8087: 8086: 8085: 8081: 8077: 8071: 8067: 8063: 8059: 8058: 8057: 8053: 8049: 8045: 8041: 8037: 8033: 8029: 8025: 8021: 8017: 8016: 8015: 8011: 8007: 8003: 7999: 7994: 7990: 7986: 7982: 7981: 7980: 7976: 7972: 7967: 7966: 7965: 7961: 7957: 7953: 7952: 7951: 7947: 7943: 7939: 7935: 7931: 7929: 7925: 7921: 7917: 7914: 7912: 7906: 7900: 7898: 7889: 7887: 7883: 7879: 7874: 7871: 7869: 7865: 7861: 7857: 7854: 7852: 7848: 7844: 7843:147.161.9.152 7840: 7837: 7835: 7832: 7831: 7830: 7821: 7813: 7809: 7805: 7801: 7800: 7799: 7796: 7791: 7785: 7781: 7780: 7779: 7775: 7771: 7767: 7766: 7765: 7762: 7760: 7754: 7752: 7747: 7746:SportingFlyer 7743: 7742:WP:NOTWEBHOST 7739: 7737: 7734: 7730: 7725: 7717: 7716: 7713: 7709: 7705: 7701: 7697: 7696: 7692: 7691: 7687: 7684: 7683: 7677: 7674: 7671: 7670: 7669: 7668: 7664: 7661: 7660: 7646: 7638: 7636: 7625: 7624: 7623: 7619: 7615: 7610: 7608: 7605: 7604: 7600: 7598: 7597: 7590: 7589: 7588: 7580: 7578: 7567: 7563: 7560: 7558: 7553:when replying 7552: 7547: 7544: 7540: 7533: 7532: 7531: 7527: 7523: 7516: 7512: 7508: 7504: 7500: 7499: 7498: 7497: 7491: 7490: 7476: 7472: 7468: 7464: 7460: 7459: 7458: 7455: 7450: 7443: 7442: 7441: 7437: 7433: 7428: 7426: 7422: 7418: 7413: 7412: 7411: 7408: 7403: 7397: 7392: 7391: 7390: 7386: 7382: 7378: 7373: 7372: 7367: 7363: 7359: 7355: 7351: 7348: 7347: 7346: 7342: 7338: 7334: 7330: 7326: 7322: 7318: 7314: 7310: 7308: 7304: 7300: 7295: 7292: 7288: 7284: 7281: 7278: 7275: 7271: 7270: 7269: 7264:when replying 7263: 7258: 7255: 7251: 7244: 7243: 7242: 7241: 7236: 7231: 7228: 7224: 7214: 7209: 7204: 7203: 7195: 7194: 7193: 7187: 7183: 7176: 7171: 7170: 7169: 7168: 7163: 7158: 7157: 7146: 7133: 7122: 7118: 7114: 7099: 7095: 7091: 7086: 7082: 7077: 7073: 7069: 7061: 7057: 7053: 7049: 7045: 7044: 7043: 7040: 7038: 7029: 7025: 7024: 7023: 7020: 7015: 7013: 7012: 7003: 6999: 6998: 6997: 6994: 6989: 6987: 6986: 6978: 6975: 6974: 6973: 6972: 6969: 6967: 6958: 6954: 6950: 6946: 6942: 6933: 6932: 6926: 6922: 6915: 6911: 6906: 6901: 6899: 6896: 6885: 6882: 6871: 6867: 6866: 6859: 6856: 6854: 6849: 6843: 6842: 6841: 6837: 6833: 6826: 6820: 6814: 6808: 6800: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6790: 6788: 6783: 6775: 6769: 6761: 6757: 6753: 6749: 6745: 6744: 6743: 6740: 6739: 6738: 6729: 6728: 6727: 6723: 6719: 6712: 6704: 6699: 6698: 6697: 6694: 6693: 6692: 6683: 6679: 6673: 6669: 6662: 6657: 6656: 6655: 6651: 6647: 6640: 6639:Split article 6630: 6620: 6610: 6603: 6599: 6593: 6590: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6580: 6576: 6572: 6568: 6567: 6566: 6563: 6558: 6557: 6550: 6546: 6542: 6538: 6537: 6536: 6530: 6526: 6519: 6515: 6514: 6511: 6508: 6503: 6499: 6495: 6491: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6482: 6478: 6471: 6468: 6466: 6460: 6456: 6448: 6445: 6442: 6440: 6434: 6431: 6430: 6429: 6426: 6421: 6412: 6411: 6410: 6404: 6400: 6393: 6389: 6384: 6368: 6362: 6358: 6351: 6347: 6343: 6339: 6335: 6330: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6322: 6318: 6314: 6303: 6296: 6295: 6294: 6290: 6286: 6282: 6281: 6280: 6279: 6273: 6269: 6262: 6256: 6255:--cut here-- 6246: 6243: 6242: 6241: 6240:--cut here-- 6238: 6235: 6232: 6206: 6202: 6198: 6197:147.161.13.58 6194: 6189: 6188: 6187: 6183: 6179: 6175: 6174: 6173: 6169: 6165: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6155: 6153: 6149: 6145: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6131: 6127: 6116: 6115: 6112: 6108: 6104: 6100: 6087: 6083: 6079: 6074: 6073: 6072: 6068: 6064: 6060: 6056: 6052: 6048: 6043: 6041: 6035: 6031: 6024: 6020: 6016: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6005: 6001: 5997: 5993: 5983: 5977: 5973: 5966: 5962: 5958: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5937: 5931: 5926: 5924: 5920: 5916: 5912: 5911: 5910: 5904: 5900: 5893: 5889: 5888: 5887: 5883: 5879: 5875: 5871: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5859: 5855: 5848: 5844: 5840: 5837: 5833: 5831: 5827: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5817: 5813: 5809: 5802: 5791: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5771: 5767: 5763: 5759: 5755: 5751: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5740: 5736: 5727: 5725: 5722: 5717: 5715: 5710: 5707: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5700: 5696: 5689: 5681: 5676: 5673: 5672:origins of T3 5654: 5650: 5648: 5647: 5639: 5636: 5632: 5626: 5622: 5620: 5619: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5595: 5591: 5590: 5589: 5586: 5581: 5579: 5576: 5571: 5567: 5563: 5559: 5555: 5554: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5547: 5545: 5544: 5537: 5533: 5529: 5528: 5527: 5523: 5521: 5520: 5513: 5509: 5504: 5500: 5496: 5492: 5491: 5490: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5467: 5463: 5459: 5438: 5436: 5433: 5431: 5429: 5426: 5423: 5421: 5418: 5416: 5413: 5410: 5408: 5405: 5404: 5401: 5398: 5396: 5393: 5391: 5387: 5385: 5382: 5379: 5377: 5374: 5372: 5369: 5366: 5364: 5361: 5360: 5357: 5354: 5352: 5349: 5347: 5343: 5340: 5339:proper format 5336: 5332: 5330:Verifiability 5329: 5326: 5324: 5321: 5319: 5316: 5313: 5311: 5308: 5307: 5304: 5301: 5299: 5296: 5293: 5289: 5286: 5282: 5279: 5277:Verifiability 5276: 5273: 5271: 5268: 5266: 5263: 5260: 5258: 5255: 5254: 5251: 5248: 5246: 5243: 5241: 5237: 5235: 5231: 5229:Verifiability 5228: 5225: 5223: 5220: 5218: 5215: 5212: 5210: 5207: 5206: 5203: 5200: 5198: 5195: 5192: 5190: 5187: 5184: 5182: 5179: 5177: 5174: 5171: 5169: 5166: 5165: 5162: 5159: 5157: 5154: 5151: 5149: 5146: 5143: 5141: 5138: 5136: 5133: 5130: 5128: 5125: 5124: 5121: 5118: 5116: 5113: 5110: 5108: 5105: 5102: 5100: 5097: 5095: 5092: 5089: 5087: 5084: 5083: 5080: 5077: 5075: 5072: 5069: 5067: 5064: 5061: 5059: 5056: 5054: 5051: 5048: 5046: 5043: 5042: 5039: 5036: 5034: 5031: 5029: 5027: 5025:Verifiability 5024: 5021: 5019: 5016: 5014: 5011: 5008: 5006: 5003: 5002: 4999: 4996: 4994: 4991: 4987: 4985: 4982: 4979: 4977: 4974: 4972: 4969: 4966: 4964: 4961: 4960: 4957: 4954: 4952: 4949: 4947: 4945: 4942: 4939: 4937: 4934: 4932: 4929: 4926: 4924: 4921: 4920: 4917: 4914: 4912: 4909: 4907: 4905: 4902: 4899: 4897: 4894: 4892: 4889: 4886: 4884: 4881: 4880: 4877: 4874: 4872: 4869: 4867: 4865: 4863:Advertisement 4862: 4859: 4857: 4854: 4852: 4849: 4846: 4844: 4841: 4840: 4837: 4834: 4832: 4829: 4827: 4825: 4822: 4819: 4817: 4814: 4812: 4809: 4806: 4804: 4801: 4800: 4797: 4794: 4792: 4789: 4786: 4784: 4781: 4778: 4775: 4773: 4770: 4767: 4765: 4762: 4761: 4758: 4755: 4753: 4750: 4748: 4746: 4744:Advertisement 4743: 4740: 4738: 4735: 4733: 4730: 4727: 4725: 4722: 4721: 4718: 4715: 4713: 4710: 4708: 4705: 4702: 4699: 4697: 4694: 4692: 4689: 4686: 4684: 4681: 4680: 4677: 4674: 4672: 4669: 4667: 4665: 4663:Advertisement 4662: 4659: 4657: 4654: 4652: 4649: 4646: 4644: 4641: 4640: 4637: 4634: 4632: 4629: 4626: 4623: 4620: 4617: 4615: 4612: 4610: 4607: 4604: 4602: 4599: 4598: 4595: 4592: 4590: 4587: 4584: 4581: 4579:Verifiability 4578: 4575: 4573: 4570: 4568: 4567:User:Njoyseon 4565: 4562: 4560: 4559:Jeon Bonggeon 4557: 4556: 4553: 4550: 4548: 4545: 4542: 4538: 4536: 4533: 4530: 4528: 4525: 4523: 4520: 4517: 4515: 4512: 4511: 4508: 4505: 4503: 4500: 4498: 4496: 4492: 4488: 4485: 4482: 4480: 4477: 4475: 4472: 4469: 4467: 4464: 4463: 4460: 4457: 4455: 4452: 4450: 4446: 4444: 4440: 4437: 4434: 4432: 4429: 4427: 4424: 4421: 4419: 4416: 4415: 4412: 4409: 4407: 4404: 4402: 4399: 4396: 4393: 4391: 4388: 4386: 4383: 4380: 4378: 4375: 4374: 4370: 4367: 4365: 4361: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4350: 4346: 4342: 4340: 4338: 4335: 4333: 4331: 4328: 4325: 4323: 4320: 4319: 4316: 4313: 4311: 4308: 4306: 4302: 4300: 4296: 4293: 4290: 4288: 4285: 4283: 4280: 4277: 4275: 4272: 4271: 4268: 4265: 4263: 4260: 4257: 4254: 4251: 4248: 4246: 4243: 4241: 4238: 4235: 4233: 4230: 4229: 4226: 4223: 4221: 4218: 4215: 4213: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4202: 4199: 4196: 4194: 4191: 4190: 4187: 4184: 4182: 4179: 4176: 4173: 4169: 4167:Verifiability 4166: 4163: 4161: 4158: 4156: 4153: 4150: 4148: 4145: 4144: 4141: 4138: 4136: 4133: 4130: 4128: 4125: 4122: 4119: 4117: 4114: 4111: 4109: 4108:Namu doryeong 4106: 4105: 4102: 4099: 4097: 4094: 4091: 4089: 4087:Verifiability 4086: 4083: 4081: 4078: 4076: 4073: 4070: 4068: 4065: 4064: 4061: 4058: 4056: 4053: 4051: 4047: 4044: 4043:proper format 4040: 4036: 4034:Verifiability 4033: 4030: 4028: 4025: 4023: 4020: 4017: 4015: 4012: 4011: 4008: 4005: 4003: 4000: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3979: 3976: 3973: 3970: 3968: 3965: 3962: 3960: 3957: 3956: 3953: 3950: 3948: 3945: 3942: 3939: 3936: 3933: 3931: 3928: 3926: 3923: 3920: 3918: 3915: 3914: 3911: 3908: 3906: 3903: 3900: 3897: 3894: 3891: 3889: 3886: 3884: 3881: 3878: 3876: 3873: 3872: 3869: 3866: 3864: 3861: 3859: 3855: 3852: 3848: 3845: 3842: 3840: 3837: 3835: 3832: 3829: 3827: 3824: 3823: 3820: 3817: 3815: 3812: 3809: 3806: 3803: 3800: 3798: 3795: 3793: 3790: 3787: 3785: 3782: 3781: 3778: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3767: 3764: 3761: 3758: 3756: 3753: 3751: 3748: 3745: 3743: 3740: 3739: 3736: 3733: 3731: 3728: 3726: 3722: 3720: 3717: 3714: 3712: 3709: 3707: 3704: 3701: 3699: 3696: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3687: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3670: 3667: 3665: 3662: 3659: 3657: 3654: 3653: 3650: 3647: 3645: 3642: 3639: 3635: 3632: 3630:Verifiability 3629: 3626: 3624: 3621: 3619: 3616: 3613: 3611: 3608: 3607: 3604: 3601: 3599: 3596: 3594: 3590: 3587: 3584: 3581: 3579: 3576: 3574: 3571: 3568: 3566: 3563: 3562: 3559: 3556: 3554: 3551: 3548: 3546: 3544:Verifiability 3543: 3540: 3538: 3535: 3533: 3530: 3527: 3525: 3522: 3521: 3517: 3514: 3511: 3508: 3505: 3502: 3499: 3496: 3493: 3490: 3489: 3484: 3483: 3477: 3476: 3472: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3458: 3454: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3394: 3390: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3356: 3352: 3345: 3339: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3312: 3308: 3301: 3295: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3260: 3256: 3254: 3253: 3245: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3226: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3199: 3197: 3196: 3189: 3185: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3169: 3166: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3133: 3131: 3128: 3123: 3117: 3116:edit conflict 3112: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3096: 3090: 3086: 3079: 3071: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3051: 3042: 3039: 3036: 3033: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3018: 3015: 3010: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2933: 2932: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2900: 2898: 2892: 2888: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2856: 2852: 2845: 2836: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2818: 2813: 2805: 2802: 2799: 2793: 2783: 2780: 2775: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2764: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2739: 2733: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2704: 2699: 2697: 2691: 2687: 2680: 2675: 2671: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2654: 2648: 2647: 2644: 2641: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2616: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2598: 2597: 2592: 2588: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2559: 2555: 2548: 2544: 2538: 2533: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2478: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2462: 2458: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2410: 2406: 2399: 2395: 2390: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227:It's part of 2226: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2209: 2202: 2195: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2171: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2147: 2140: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2117: 2112: 2107: 2102: 2101: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2039: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2020: 2015: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2003: 2000: 1995: 1993: 1990: 1989: 1982: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1932: 1931: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1886: 1881: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1848: 1841: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1780: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1765: 1761: 1754: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1652: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1620: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1609:Example (type 1606: 1602: 1601:Example (type 1598: 1594: 1593:Example (type 1590: 1589: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1569: 1564: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1511: 1508: 1503: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1478: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1423: 1415: 1405: 1402: 1397: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1372: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1362: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1311: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1259:as a member. 1258: 1254: 1248: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1206: 1204: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1183: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1168: 1164: 1157: 1150: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1110: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1083: 1079: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1061: 1053: 1048: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 983: 982: 978: 974: 968: 963: 962: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 940: 939: 938: 932: 928: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 893: 890: 885: 883: 878: 876: 872: 868: 861: 857: 853: 850: 849: 842: 829: 825: 821: 813: 809: 805: 801: 797: 796: 795: 792: 791: 784: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 752: 751: 750: 747: 743: 736: 735:Deepfriedokra 732: 727: 726: 725: 722: 721: 714: 701: 700:very question 697: 691: 686: 685: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 662: 659: 655: 653: 650: 649:Dirk Beetstra 646: 642: 638: 633: 631: 627: 625: 620: 616: 614: 611: 610: 603: 589: 588: 587: 586: 583: 575: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 544: 543: 539: 535: 531: 530: 525: 523: 519: 515: 511: 508: 504: 501: 496: 494: 489: 488: 487: 484: 483: 479: 477: 476: 468: 462: 458: 454: 449: 448: 447: 444: 439: 437: 432: 429: 426: 425: 424: 420: 416: 411: 407: 404: 400: 397: 392: 390: 386: 385: 381: 378: 374: 370: 367: 364: 360: 359: 356: 352: 348: 344: 342: 341: 334: 330: 329: 328: 324: 320: 318: 317: 308: 303: 302: 299: 293: 289: 282: 278: 274: 270: 265: 261: 257: 253: 252:Djm-leighpark 248: 242: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 218: 217: 216: 212: 208: 203: 202: 201: 197: 193: 188: 187: 186: 183: 178: 171: 167: 165: 161: 157: 153: 150: 149: 148: 147: 144: 128: 124: 121: 117: 116: 115: 113: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 10898: 10879: 10762:applies but 10742: 10738: 10734: 10731: 10722: 10674: 10656: 10653: 10499: 10485: 10440: 10416: 10352: 10322: 10308: 10303: 10290: 10285: 10243: 10238: 10150: 10143: 10077: 10030: 10004: 9983: 9915:for details. 9876: 9827: 9796: 9795: 9761: 9760: 9717: 9716: 9521: 9517: 9513: 9506: 9488: 9485: 9474: 9463: 9423: 9336: 9318: 9296: 9284: 9271: 9265: 9255: 9254: 9248: 9175: 9158: 9141: 9130: 9109: 9093: 9091: 9085: 9073:Double sharp 9068: 9064: 9044: 9027: 9023: 8992: 8973: 8965: 8948: 8931: 8919: 8913: 8901: 8897: 8874: 8852: 8835: 8818: 8792: 8790: 8786: 8767: 8754: 8746: 8731: 8719: 8702: 8682: 8664: 8647: 8616: 8595: 8589: 8583: 8577: 8553: 8551: 8545: 8541: 8537: 8535: 8531: 8513: 8494: 8473: 8464:RFC: should 8447: 8373: 8369: 8347: 8339: 8317: 8313: 8265: 8225: 8214: 8195: 8134: 8019: 8002:requirements 7992: 7988: 7984: 7937: 7933: 7915: 7896: 7872: 7855: 7838: 7825: 7824: 7756: 7748: 7720: 7662: 7634: 7602: 7595: 7594: 7576: 7535: 7462: 7395: 7332: 7328: 7320: 7312: 7290: 7246: 7219: 7198: 7152: 7149: 7127: 7084: 7080: 7075: 7031: 7010: 7008: 7001: 6984: 6982: 6960: 6939: 6936:Knowledge R2 6904: 6902: 6893: 6852: 6825:criterion G7 6815:, not about 6813:criterion U1 6786: 6733: 6732: 6687: 6686: 6601: 6506: 6464: 6462: 6458: 6457: 6453: 6438: 6436: 6427: 6413: 6385: 6382: 6376: 6257: 6254: 6239: 6236: 6233: 6230: 6151: 6147: 6143: 6122: 6097: 6018: 6014: 5995: 5960: 5935: 5835: 5829: 5795: 5774:67.86.76.249 5730:<ref: --> 5679: 5677: 5668: 5645: 5644: 5617: 5616: 5599: 5598: 5558:Calliopejen1 5542: 5541: 5532:Mdaniels5757 5518: 5517: 5481:Calliopejen1 5457: 5454: 5400:User:Fastily 5356:User:Fastily 5303:User:Fastily 5250:User:Fastily 5202:User:Fastily 5161:User:Fastily 5120:User:Fastily 5079:User:Fastily 5038:User:Fastily 4998:User:Shirt58 4993:User:Lapablo 4956:User:Zzyzx11 4916:User:Fastily 4876:User:Fastily 4836:User:Fastily 4816:User:Bkissin 4796:User:Fastily 4791:User:Lapablo 4787:26 footnotes 4757:User:Fastily 4676:User:Fastily 4636:User:Fastily 4594:User:Fastily 4585:39 footnotes 4507:User:Fastily 4479:User:TheAafi 4454:User:Lapablo 4411:User:Fastily 4347: 4344: 4315:User:Fastily 4310:User:Lapablo 4267:User:Fastily 4258:14 footnotes 4225:User:Fastily 4186:User:Fastily 4060:User:Fastily 4007:User:Fastily 3986: 3983: 3952:User:Fastily 3910:User:Fastily 3868:User:Fastily 3819:User:Fastily 3784:Pahk Yon-Hee 3777:User:Fastily 3735:User:Fastily 3691:User:Fastily 3649:User:Fastily 3558:User:Fastily 3518:G13 deleter 3462:Calliopejen1 3449: 3420:Calliopejen1 3341: 3337: 3270: 3269: 3265: 3251: 3250: 3244:Calliopejen1 3194: 3193: 3069: 3049: 3046: 3026: 2970: 2966: 2936: 2930: 2903: 2867: 2841: 2829: 2826: 2823: 2819: 2806: 2803: 2800: 2797: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2729: 2705:; a fork of 2669: 2645: 2642: 2639: 2624: 2570:a discussion 2542: 2391: 2387: 2373: 2358: 2275: 2120: 2115: 2111:specifically 2110: 2105: 2058: 2037: 1971: 1967: 1949: 1935: 1929: 1890: 1884: 1839: 1837: 1770: 1763: 1759: 1740: 1711: 1636: 1556: 1537: 1535: 1531: 1477:Amorymeltzer 1453: 1421: 1344: 1066: 1059: 1057: 901: 860:WP:RFCBEFORE 831: 799: 773: 741: 703: 669:'s comment: 618: 592: 573: 571: 527: 509: 481: 474: 473: 430: 405: 372:(musician)". 339: 338: 332: 315: 314: 228: 151: 132: 109: 78: 43: 37: 10767:criteria. 10194:Soumya-8974 10178:PorkchopGMX 9828:I referred 9142:SMcCandlish 8538:substantial 7143:Moved from 6823:, which is 6609:Merged-from 6455:judgement. 6309:|rationale= 5536:MDanielsBot 5351:User:JMHamo 5172:Korean myth 5131:Korean myth 5090:Korean myth 5049:Korean myth 4951:User:JMHamo 4322:Ha Sangwook 4135:User:JMHamo 4096:User:JMHamo 3603:User:Ged UK 3494:Description 2792:page movers 2608:Pbsouthwood 2505:Pbsouthwood 2448:Thank you. 2127:reasons. -- 1753:R from move 1615:? Or what? 1253:Category:X1 1060:your userid 746:PythonSwarm 696:PythonSwarm 671:PythonSwarm 582:PythonSwarm 36:This is an 9315:Discussion 9301:Arsonxists 9272:CaptainEek 8879:P,TO 19104 8707:~ ToBeFree 8652:Trialpears 8546:seven days 8499:Beeblebrox 8451:Trialpears 7934:supporting 7317:GARAGEBAND 6573:, not G7. 6285:Praxidicae 5934:Regarding 5874:WP:NFCC#3a 5427:Notability 5383:Notability 5283:should be 4903:Notability 4823:Essay/NPOV 4534:Notability 4438:Notability 4294:Notability 4080:User:Zanhe 3846:Notability 3718:Notability 3585:Notability 3515:Speedy nom 3122:* Pppery * 3055:Jackmcbarn 2838:objection. 2712:Trialpears 2189:What does 2121:uninvolved 1611:points to 1603:points to 1595:points to 1502:* Pppery * 1487:Jackmcbarn 1442:Jackmcbarn 1396:* Pppery * 1377:Jackmcbarn 1356:* Pppery * 1327:Jackmcbarn 1305:* Pppery * 1291:Jackmcbarn 1261:Jackmcbarn 1182:db-userreq 1149:Jackmcbarn 1134:Jackmcbarn 1116:Jackmcbarn 999:Archive 73 995:Archive 72 991:Archive 70 987:Archive 51 277:Jon Smitth 98:Archive 85 90:Archive 81 85:Archive 80 79:Archive 79 73:Archive 78 68:Archive 77 60:Archive 75 10884:SmokeyJoe 10865:Thryduulf 10793:Thryduulf 10590:SmokeyJoe 10521:Barkeep49 10488:WP:SALTed 10465:Thryduulf 10374:Thryduulf 10277:SP:RANDOM 10269:SP:Random 10255:Thryduulf 10222:SP:Random 10208:Thryduulf 10157:Thryduulf 10124:Thryduulf 10082:Thryduulf 9951:Sebastian 9928:Sebastian 9859:Thryduulf 9809:SmokeyJoe 9773:SmokeyJoe 9740:SmokeyJoe 9726:T. Canens 9672:SmokeyJoe 9659:SmokeyJoe 9655:WP:CSD#G8 9639:SmokeyJoe 9626:SmokeyJoe 9603:SmokeyJoe 9590:SmokeyJoe 9574:SmokeyJoe 9561:SmokeyJoe 9507:genuinely 9491:SmokeyJoe 9322:Jonesey95 9226:WP:CSD#T3 8936:Thryduulf 8670:Jonesey95 8516:WP:CSD#T3 8370:expanding 8169:Thryduulf 8135:right now 8103:Thryduulf 8076:Thryduulf 8062:Thryduulf 8006:Thryduulf 7956:Thryduulf 7938:something 7920:Thryduulf 7804:SmokeyJoe 7704:SmokeyJoe 7700:WP:NEWCSD 7614:SmokeyJoe 7562:Redrose64 7539:Squeeps10 7509:does not 7493:Off-topic 7358:SmokeyJoe 7313:multitude 7250:Squeeps10 7201:Squeeps10 7155:Squeeps10 7090:Thryduulf 7072:WP:NEWCSD 6910:WP:BOLDly 6819:db-author 6619:Merged-to 6512:on reply) 6078:George Ho 6047:George Ho 5957:WP:REFUND 5915:George Ho 5878:George Ho 5870:WP:NFCC#8 5843:WP:REFUND 5812:George Ho 5688:Old moves 5594:WP:REFUND 5508:SDZeroBot 5337:cited in 4527:User:J947 4495:WP:Layout 4041:cited in 3901:Not a BLP 3810:Not a BLP 3768:Not a BLP 3682:Not a BLP 3181:WP:REFUND 3137:SmokeyJoe 2876:permalink 2674:WP:REFUND 2635:CAT:EMPTY 2522:Natureium 2501:Thryduulf 2436:Thryduulf 2282:WP:REFUND 2250:SmokeyJoe 2233:George Ho 2229:WP:CSD F7 2215:SmokeyJoe 2177:George Ho 2175:, right? 2153:SmokeyJoe 2129:Aquillion 2085:Aquillion 1953:George Ho 1914:George Ho 1855:George Ho 1816:Thryduulf 1786:Thryduulf 1483:WP:BOLDly 1247:Redrose64 1052:Thryduulf 1022:Thryduulf 973:Thryduulf 552:Thryduulf 548:WP:RDRAFT 514:Thryduulf 453:SmokeyJoe 428:SmokeyJoe 415:SmokeyJoe 340:Steel1943 316:Steel1943 221:Draft:Kkk 112:WP:CSD#G6 10818:WP:PEREN 10780:contribs 10708:Primefac 10283:at RFD. 10275:because 10202:HotdogPi 10100:Paul_012 10059:Primefac 10036:Primefac 10005:unlikely 9987:Paul_012 9960:Primefac 9907:Change “ 9676:RoySmith 9643:RoySmith 9611:RoySmith 9578:RoySmith 9548:RoySmith 9419:editors. 9376:Primefac 9341:Primefac 9297:Option A 9285:Option A 9266:Option A 9249:Option A 9231:—⁠Scotty 9182:—⁠Scotty 9176:Option C 9159:Option A 9110:Option A 9086:Option A 9069:option B 9065:Option A 9051:waddie96 9049:comrade 9045:Option A 9024:Option B 8993:Option A 8966:Oppose B 8949:Option A 8932:Option A 8898:Option A 8888:contribs 8875:Option A 8853:Option A 8836:Option A 8819:Option A 8810:Contribs 8787:Option A 8768:Option A 8747:Option A 8720:Option A 8703:Option A 8693:a·po·des 8683:Option A 8665:Option A 8648:Option A 8621:Primefac 8617:Option A 8598:Primefac 8590:Option C 8584:Option B 8578:Option A 8564:(hoax), 8520:Primefac 8409:Primefac 8378:Primefac 8285:Primefac 8247:Primefac 8120:Adam9007 7971:Adam9007 7942:Adam9007 7770:Primefac 7732:Chequers 7417:Primefac 7337:Primefac 7291:rejected 7186:contribs 7113:Primefac 7052:Primefac 6925:contribs 6847:Schazjmd 6799:Schazjmd 6781:Schazjmd 6746:Indeed: 6672:contribs 6575:Primefac 6541:Primefac 6529:contribs 6505:(please 6494:Primefac 6481:contribs 6439:username 6403:contribs 6361:contribs 6313:Primefac 6297:Agreed. 6272:contribs 6227:Resolved 6178:Primefac 6164:Hog Farm 6034:contribs 6015:arguably 5976:contribs 5903:contribs 5872:(and/or 5858:contribs 5754:Primefac 5709:Primefac 5695:Primefac 5477:User:Liz 5462:Primefac 4572:User:DGG 4552:User:Liz 4245:User:DGG 3851:WP:NBOOK 3512:Comments 3500:Reviewer 3405:Primefac 3393:contribs 3368:Primefac 3355:contribs 3323:Primefac 3311:contribs 3294:Cthomas3 3211:Muboshgu 3177:Muboshgu 3101:Primefac 3089:contribs 3070:only one 2996:WP:ROBIN 2975:Primefac 2971:at least 2949:Primefac 2922:Universe 2908:Primefac 2891:contribs 2855:contribs 2732:McMatter 2690:contribs 2558:contribs 2543:a little 2461:contribs 2409:contribs 2337:Primefac 2319:Primefac 2306:Primefac 2125:WP:MANDY 1968:an idiot 1801:JHunterJ 1718:JHunterJ 1557:external 1189:Primefac 1167:contribs 1095:Primefac 1082:contribs 1037:Primefac 1003:Primefac 967:Primefac 952:Primefac 931:contribs 912:Primefac 804:Primefac 694:I asked 410:WP:ATD-R 292:contribs 10855:Cryptic 10845:of the 10769:davidwr 10586:WP:RfPP 10582:WP:SALT 10554:Cryptic 10481:WP:SALT 10345:WP:SSRT 10230:Fastily 10200:, and 10190:Uanfala 10174:Fastily 9852:Fastily 9794:Dreamy 9759:Dreamy 9337:someone 9253:Dreamy 9233:Wong⁠— 9184:Wong⁠— 8953:the wub 8801:Hamster 8560:(test) 7828:Hut 8.5 7549:Please 7507:article 7505:of the 7260:Please 7206:please 7175:davidwr 7160:please 7046:That's 6914:davidwr 6811:, i.e. 6807:db-user 6774:Fastily 6736:Hut 8.5 6711:Hut 8.5 6703:Davidwr 6690:Hut 8.5 6661:davidwr 6518:davidwr 6470:davidwr 6420:db-user 6392:davidwr 6350:davidwr 6261:davidwr 6023:davidwr 5996:removed 5965:davidwr 5930:Davidwr 5892:davidwr 5847:davidwr 5635:Uanfala 5602:Hut 8.5 5534:'s bot 5424:Decline 5380:Decline 5327:Decline 5274:Decline 5226:Decline 5185:Decline 5144:Decline 5103:Decline 5062:Decline 5022:Decline 4980:Decline 4940:Decline 4900:Decline 4860:Decline 4820:Decline 4741:Decline 4700:Decline 4660:Decline 4618:Decline 4576:Decline 4531:Decline 4491:WP:Tone 4483:Decline 4443:WP:REFB 4435:Decline 4394:Decline 4299:WP:REFB 4291:Decline 4249:Decline 4172:WP:CITE 4164:Decline 4084:Decline 4031:Decline 3934:Decline 3892:Decline 3843:Decline 3801:Decline 3759:Decline 3715:Decline 3673:Decline 3627:Decline 3582:Decline 3541:Decline 3503:Outcome 3457:WP:GLAM 3382:davidwr 3344:davidwr 3300:davidwr 3078:davidwr 2992:WP:SWAP 2880:davidwr 2868:Notice: 2844:davidwr 2738:contrib 2679:davidwr 2640:Laundry 2604:davidwr 2547:davidwr 2537:Uanfala 2493:davidwr 2450:davidwr 2398:davidwr 2360:Changed 2008:Uanfala 1764:clearly 1760:clearly 1613:Example 1599:? Or 1485:do it. 1156:davidwr 1071:davidwr 920:davidwr 667:Cryptic 658:Cryptic 307:Fastily 281:davidwr 127:example 120:example 39:archive 10880:Oppose 10825:rose64 10691:Merge 10117:db-xfd 10096:db-xfd 10020:(i.e. 10015:db-xfd 9892:Thank 9857:ones. 9839:ASTILY 9722:CSD G6 9679:(talk) 9646:(talk) 9614:(talk) 9581:(talk) 9551:(talk) 9536:WP:SPI 9481:WP:GAN 9405:Earwig 9215:ASTILY 9194:time. 9135:WP:TFD 9011:Stifle 8903:KevinL 8823:Andrew 8777:ASTILY 8751:Bilorv 8611:Survey 8570:WP:TFD 8427:speedy 8395:rose64 8242:WP:TFD 8200:Stifle 8196:Oppose 8042:; and 7916:Oppose 7873:Oppose 7856:Oppose 7839:Oppose 7784:WP:NOT 7782:Also, 7663:Oppose 7596:BD2412 7566:WP:TPO 7522:rose64 7503:number 7329:forced 7223:WT:CSD 7085:should 6953:delete 6879:ASTILY 6853:(talk) 6832:rose64 6787:(talk) 6629:Copied 6507:do not 6450:human) 6307:has a 6099:WP:G14 6063:Stifle 5943:rose64 5826:WP:F7d 5808:WP:F7d 5790:WP:F7d 5188:Exists 5147:Exists 5106:Exists 5065:Exists 3849:Fails 3524:Eulhwa 3497:Author 3275:Thomas 3014:(talk) 3000:WP:RMT 2631:CAT:T3 2507:. – 2286:WP:DRV 2118:-: --> 2045:rose64 1910:WP:F11 1908:, and 1870:331dot 1840:Id est 1713:WP:G14 1659:WP:RFD 1446:WP:TFD 1427:SD0001 1371:Pppery 1320:Pppery 1232:rose64 1210:SD0001 944:WP:TFD 916:WT:Lua 867:rose64 828:WP:DRV 758:WP:MFD 645:Russia 641:Moscow 637:Moscow 510:Oppose 475:BD2412 376:redir. 362:entry. 333:oppose 207:SD0001 156:SD0001 141:ASTILY 10849:four 10847:first 10843:three 10764:WP:G7 10760:WP:U1 10695:with 10681:talk 10663:talk 10417:Godsy 10353:Godsy 10309:ping! 10291:ping! 10244:ping! 10198:Godsy 10022:WP:G6 9532:Mazca 9447:Nabla 9424:votes 9359:Isaac 9032:Nabla 8997:Aasim 8974:Godsy 8860:Isaac 8795:Super 8566:WP:G6 8562:WP:G3 8558:WP:G2 8466:WP:T3 8344:Amory 8235:db-t3 8115:WP:AN 8020:again 7993:Every 7985:never 7897:Godsy 7728:Spiel 7511:agree 7381:Nsk92 7377:WP:OR 7230:Isaac 7081:every 7076:think 7048:WP:G6 6945:WP:R2 6870:a bot 6750::-)-- 6571:WP:U1 6437:User: 6415:Many 6387:below 6334:AllyD 6302:db-g7 6168:Bacon 6132:} :? 6103:WP:G6 5828:says 5285:WP:RS 4989:code) 4489:See, 4354:talk 3993:talk 3937:Essay 3491:Title 3050:don't 2967:first 2812:db-g6 2801:How? 2643:Pizza 2278:WP:T3 2146:db-a7 2106:might 1977:fried 1906:WP:F5 1902:WP:F7 1607:? Or 1450:Amory 948:WP:T3 837:fried 824:WP:G5 779:fried 766:WP:G3 762:WP:G5 760:and 709:fried 698:this 598:fried 529:Kusma 275:(now 170:WP:R3 16:< 10888:talk 10869:talk 10851:hits 10829:talk 10827:🌹 ( 10797:talk 10776:talk 10748:talk 10712:talk 10612:talk 10594:talk 10564:Wily 10525:talk 10509:talk 10469:talk 10424:CONT 10402:. A 10378:talk 10360:CONT 10335:soft 10331:hard 10259:talk 10212:talk 10161:talk 10128:talk 10104:talk 10086:talk 10063:talk 10040:talk 10031:used 9991:talk 9964:talk 9941:talk 9937:Izno 9900:and 9883:talk 9863:talk 9813:talk 9797:Jazz 9777:talk 9762:Jazz 9744:talk 9730:talk 9663:talk 9630:talk 9594:talk 9565:talk 9495:talk 9451:talk 9402:. — 9400:here 9398:and 9396:here 9380:talk 9345:talk 9326:talk 9305:talk 9256:Jazz 9200:talk 9167:talk 9092:brad 9077:talk 9055:talk 9036:talk 9015:talk 9001:talk 8981:CONT 8957:"?!" 8940:talk 8911:L235 8884:talk 8844:talk 8827:talk 8807:Talk 8757:talk 8732:Sdkb 8726:{{u| 8711:talk 8690:Wug· 8674:talk 8656:talk 8639:talk 8635:Izno 8625:talk 8602:talk 8554:only 8524:talk 8503:talk 8455:talk 8435:talk 8431:Izno 8413:talk 8399:talk 8397:🌹 ( 8382:talk 8326:talk 8304:talk 8300:Izno 8289:talk 8274:talk 8270:Izno 8266:a la 8251:talk 8204:talk 8173:talk 8139:Wily 8124:talk 8094:talk 8080:talk 8066:talk 8052:talk 8046:.)-- 8044:here 8040:here 8036:here 8032:here 8024:here 8010:talk 7989:only 7975:talk 7960:talk 7946:talk 7924:talk 7904:CONT 7882:talk 7864:talk 7847:talk 7808:talk 7774:talk 7723:Ϣere 7708:talk 7635:Sdkb 7629:{{u| 7618:talk 7577:Sdkb 7571:{{u| 7551:ping 7543:Talk 7541:}} { 7537:{{u| 7526:talk 7524:🌹 ( 7515:noun 7471:talk 7467:Izno 7436:talk 7432:Izno 7421:talk 7396:need 7385:talk 7362:talk 7341:talk 7333:need 7303:talk 7299:Izno 7262:ping 7254:Talk 7252:}} { 7248:{{u| 7208:ping 7182:talk 7162:ping 7117:talk 7094:talk 7070:Per 7056:talk 7037:talk 7009:brad 6983:brad 6966:talk 6921:talk 6836:talk 6834:🌹 ( 6827:. -- 6756:talk 6722:talk 6668:talk 6650:talk 6579:talk 6545:talk 6525:talk 6510:ping 6498:talk 6477:talk 6399:talk 6357:talk 6338:talk 6317:talk 6289:talk 6268:talk 6201:talk 6182:talk 6130:talk 6082:talk 6067:talk 6051:talk 6030:talk 6004:talk 6000:Whpq 5972:talk 5947:talk 5945:🌹 ( 5919:talk 5899:talk 5882:talk 5854:talk 5816:talk 5778:talk 5758:talk 5739:talk 5735:Izno 5699:talk 5562:talk 5485:talk 5466:talk 5458:then 5439:N/A 4493:and 4486:NPOV 3466:talk 3424:talk 3409:talk 3389:talk 3372:talk 3351:talk 3327:talk 3307:talk 3282:talk 3234:talk 3215:talk 3175:and 3155:talk 3151:Izno 3141:talk 3105:talk 3085:talk 3059:talk 2994:and 2979:talk 2953:talk 2931:Reyk 2912:talk 2887:talk 2851:talk 2716:talk 2686:talk 2554:talk 2526:talk 2457:talk 2440:talk 2426:talk 2405:talk 2341:talk 2327:talk 2310:talk 2294:talk 2254:talk 2237:talk 2219:talk 2181:talk 2157:talk 2133:talk 2089:talk 2049:talk 2047:🌹 ( 1986:talk 1980:okra 1974:Deep 1957:talk 1930:Reyk 1918:talk 1885:Reyk 1874:talk 1859:talk 1820:talk 1805:talk 1790:talk 1773:avix 1741:very 1722:talk 1688:talk 1645:talk 1637:wiki 1582:talk 1546:talk 1491:talk 1432:talk 1422:Like 1381:talk 1331:talk 1295:talk 1265:talk 1236:talk 1234:🌹 ( 1215:talk 1193:talk 1163:talk 1138:talk 1120:talk 1099:talk 1078:talk 1041:talk 1026:talk 1007:talk 977:talk 956:talk 927:talk 908:Here 904:Here 871:talk 869:🌹 ( 846:talk 840:okra 834:Deep 808:talk 800:zero 788:talk 782:okra 776:Deep 733:and 718:talk 712:okra 706:Deep 679:talk 665:Per 607:talk 601:okra 595:Deep 556:talk 546:Per 518:talk 457:talk 419:talk 347:talk 323:talk 288:talk 256:talk 237:talk 229:move 211:talk 196:talk 160:talk 10853:. — 10823:Red 10778:)/( 10676:DGG 10658:DGG 10628:Why 10500:not 10333:or 10304:GMX 10286:GMX 10239:GMX 10228:by 9894:you 9356:Van 9151:😼 8908:aka 8886:) ( 8857:Van 8825:🐉( 8393:Red 8374:are 8340:any 7794:Why 7520:Red 7453:Why 7406:Why 7321:are 7280:ich 7277:v¡v 7227:Van 7221:at 7184:)/( 7002:any 6923:)/( 6830:Red 6670:)/( 6527:)/( 6479:)/( 6401:)/( 6359:)/( 6270:)/( 6032:)/( 5974:)/( 5941:Red 5901:)/( 5856:)/( 5801:dfu 5714:DES 5680:and 4782:N/A 4776:N/A 4349:DGG 4211:N/A 4205:N/A 4126:N/A 4120:N/A 3988:DGG 3977:N/A 3971:N/A 3391:)/( 3353:)/( 3309:)/( 3207:Liz 3188:AFC 3087:)/( 2937:YO! 2924:to 2889:)/( 2878:). 2853:)/( 2778:Why 2688:)/( 2556:)/( 2459:)/( 2407:)/( 2396:. 2374:to 2208:dfu 2194:dfu 2170:dfu 2043:Red 2012:DES 1936:YO! 1891:YO! 1847:dfu 1739:is 1617:DES 1567:Why 1230:Red 1165:)/( 1080:)/( 950:). 929:)/( 914:on 882:DES 865:Red 742:not 493:DES 436:DES 389:DES 290:)/( 181:Why 10890:) 10871:) 10831:) 10799:) 10714:) 10697:G7 10693:U1 10683:) 10665:) 10623:So 10614:) 10596:) 10527:) 10511:) 10471:) 10463:. 10445:. 10413:— 10404:G4 10396:G7 10392:R2 10380:) 10349:— 10327:R2 10273:G4 10261:) 10236:. 10234:G7 10226:R2 10214:) 10206:. 10196:, 10192:, 10188:, 10184:, 10180:, 10176:, 10163:) 10130:) 10120:}} 10114:{{ 10106:) 10088:) 10078:No 10065:) 10042:) 10018:}} 10012:{{ 9993:) 9966:) 9943:) 9926:◅ 9885:) 9865:) 9815:) 9779:) 9746:) 9720:. 9665:) 9632:) 9624:-- 9596:) 9567:) 9497:) 9479:, 9453:) 9433:, 9382:) 9364:WS 9347:) 9328:) 9307:) 9202:) 9169:) 9139:— 9116:. 9114:G2 9101:🍁 9079:) 9038:) 9017:) 9003:) 8970:— 8942:) 8925:) 8890:) 8865:WS 8846:) 8829:) 8761:) 8738:}} 8713:) 8688:— 8676:) 8658:) 8641:) 8627:) 8604:) 8526:) 8505:) 8497:. 8457:) 8437:) 8423:am 8415:) 8401:) 8384:) 8356:• 8352:• 8328:) 8306:) 8298:-- 8291:) 8276:) 8253:) 8238:}} 8232:{{ 8206:) 8175:) 8126:) 8096:) 8082:) 8068:) 8054:) 8038:; 8034:; 8012:) 7977:) 7962:) 7948:) 7926:) 7893:— 7884:) 7866:) 7849:) 7810:) 7789:So 7776:) 7710:) 7641:}} 7620:) 7612:-- 7583:}} 7555:. 7528:) 7473:) 7465:-- 7448:So 7438:) 7423:) 7401:So 7387:) 7364:) 7343:) 7305:) 7297:-- 7274:Le 7266:. 7235:WS 7210:me 7164:me 7119:) 7096:) 7058:) 7018:🍁 6992:🍁 6959:. 6838:) 6821:}} 6817:{{ 6809:}} 6805:{{ 6758:) 6724:) 6652:) 6642:}} 6636:{{ 6634:, 6632:}} 6626:{{ 6624:, 6622:}} 6616:{{ 6614:, 6612:}} 6606:{{ 6581:) 6547:) 6500:) 6423:}} 6417:{{ 6340:) 6319:) 6305:}} 6299:{{ 6291:) 6203:) 6184:) 6084:) 6069:) 6053:) 6006:) 5949:) 5921:) 5884:) 5818:) 5806:; 5804:}} 5798:{{ 5780:) 5760:) 5741:) 5701:) 5691:}} 5685:{{ 5649:iz 5621:iz 5564:) 5546:iz 5522:iz 5514:. 5487:) 5468:) 4356:) 3995:) 3468:) 3426:) 3411:) 3374:) 3342:" 3329:) 3284:) 3255:iz 3236:) 3217:) 3198:iz 3157:) 3143:) 3107:) 3061:) 2981:) 2955:) 2914:) 2815:}} 2809:{{ 2773:So 2718:) 2660:) 2657:c̄ 2646:03 2606:, 2589:: 2528:) 2503:, 2499:, 2495:, 2479:: 2442:) 2428:) 2343:) 2329:) 2312:) 2296:) 2288:? 2256:) 2239:) 2221:) 2211:}} 2205:{{ 2199:, 2197:}} 2191:{{ 2183:) 2173:}} 2167:{{ 2159:) 2149:}} 2143:{{ 2135:) 2091:) 2083:-- 2051:) 1959:) 1920:) 1912:? 1876:) 1861:) 1850:}} 1844:{{ 1822:) 1807:) 1792:) 1767:-- 1756:}} 1750:{{ 1724:) 1690:) 1669:, 1665:, 1647:) 1584:) 1562:So 1548:) 1493:) 1462:• 1458:• 1434:) 1383:) 1333:) 1297:) 1267:) 1238:) 1217:) 1195:) 1185:}} 1179:{{ 1140:) 1122:) 1101:) 1043:) 1028:) 1009:) 997:, 993:, 989:, 979:) 958:) 873:) 830:-- 810:) 772:-- 681:) 643:, 628:: 617:A 591:-- 558:) 540:) 520:) 459:) 451:-- 421:) 349:) 325:) 258:) 239:) 213:) 198:) 176:So 162:) 94:→ 64:← 10886:( 10867:( 10810:: 10806:@ 10795:( 10782:) 10774:( 10771:/ 10750:) 10746:( 10733:" 10710:( 10699:? 10679:( 10661:( 10610:( 10592:( 10568:D 10523:( 10507:( 10467:( 10427:) 10376:( 10363:) 10257:( 10210:( 10204:: 10172:@ 10159:( 10126:( 10102:( 10084:( 10061:( 10038:( 9989:( 9962:( 9939:( 9881:( 9861:( 9854:: 9850:@ 9836:F 9811:( 9807:— 9775:( 9742:( 9728:( 9661:( 9628:( 9592:( 9563:( 9522:a 9520:c 9518:z 9516:a 9514:m 9493:( 9449:( 9378:( 9343:( 9324:( 9303:( 9277:⚓ 9212:F 9198:( 9165:( 9149:¢ 9146:☏ 9131:A 9094:v 9075:( 9057:) 9053:( 9034:( 9028:A 9013:( 8999:( 8984:) 8938:( 8923:c 8920:· 8917:t 8914:· 8906:( 8882:( 8842:( 8791:~ 8774:F 8753:( 8709:( 8695: 8672:( 8654:( 8637:( 8623:( 8600:( 8548:. 8522:( 8501:( 8453:( 8433:( 8411:( 8380:( 8360:) 8358:c 8354:t 8350:u 8348:( 8324:( 8302:( 8287:( 8272:( 8249:( 8202:( 8171:( 8143:D 8122:( 8092:( 8078:( 8064:( 8050:( 8008:( 7973:( 7958:( 7944:( 7922:( 7907:) 7880:( 7862:( 7845:( 7806:( 7772:( 7759:C 7755:· 7751:T 7706:( 7616:( 7603:T 7545:} 7469:( 7434:( 7419:( 7383:( 7360:( 7339:( 7301:( 7256:} 7188:) 7180:( 7177:/ 7115:( 7092:( 7054:( 7039:) 7035:( 7011:v 6985:v 6968:) 6964:( 6927:) 6919:( 6916:/ 6876:F 6801:: 6797:@ 6776:: 6772:@ 6754:( 6720:( 6713:: 6709:@ 6705:: 6701:@ 6674:) 6666:( 6663:/ 6648:( 6577:( 6543:( 6531:) 6523:( 6520:/ 6496:( 6483:) 6475:( 6472:/ 6441:/ 6405:) 6397:( 6394:/ 6363:) 6355:( 6352:/ 6336:( 6315:( 6287:( 6274:) 6266:( 6263:/ 6199:( 6180:( 6152:a 6150:c 6148:z 6146:a 6144:m 6128:{ 6080:( 6065:( 6049:( 6036:) 6028:( 6025:/ 6002:( 5978:) 5970:( 5967:/ 5932:: 5928:@ 5917:( 5905:) 5897:( 5894:/ 5880:( 5860:) 5852:( 5849:/ 5814:( 5792:) 5776:( 5756:( 5737:( 5697:( 5646:L 5618:L 5560:( 5543:L 5519:L 5483:( 5464:( 4352:( 4174:. 3991:( 3464:( 3422:( 3407:( 3395:) 3387:( 3384:/ 3370:( 3357:) 3349:( 3346:/ 3340:] 3336:" 3325:( 3313:) 3305:( 3302:/ 3296:: 3292:@ 3280:( 3273:C 3252:L 3232:( 3213:( 3195:L 3183:. 3153:( 3139:( 3118:) 3114:( 3103:( 3091:) 3083:( 3080:/ 3057:( 2977:( 2951:( 2910:( 2893:) 2885:( 2882:/ 2874:( 2857:) 2849:( 2846:/ 2761:a 2759:c 2757:z 2755:a 2753:m 2740:) 2736:( 2734:/ 2714:( 2692:) 2684:( 2681:/ 2652:d 2649:( 2560:) 2552:( 2549:/ 2539:: 2535:@ 2524:( 2463:) 2455:( 2452:/ 2438:( 2424:( 2411:) 2403:( 2400:/ 2384:. 2339:( 2325:( 2308:( 2292:( 2252:( 2235:( 2217:( 2179:( 2155:( 2131:( 2087:( 1988:) 1984:( 1955:( 1916:( 1872:( 1857:( 1818:( 1803:( 1788:( 1771:T 1720:( 1686:( 1671:3 1667:2 1663:1 1643:( 1580:( 1544:( 1489:( 1479:: 1475:@ 1466:) 1464:c 1460:t 1456:u 1454:( 1430:( 1379:( 1373:: 1369:@ 1329:( 1322:: 1318:@ 1293:( 1263:( 1249:: 1245:@ 1213:( 1191:( 1169:) 1161:( 1158:/ 1151:: 1147:@ 1136:( 1118:( 1097:( 1084:) 1076:( 1073:/ 1062:/ 1054:: 1050:@ 1039:( 1024:( 1005:( 975:( 969:: 965:@ 954:( 933:) 925:( 922:/ 848:) 844:( 806:( 790:) 786:( 737:: 729:@ 720:) 716:( 692:: 688:@ 677:( 609:) 605:( 554:( 538:c 536:· 534:t 532:( 516:( 482:T 455:( 417:( 345:( 321:( 309:: 305:@ 294:) 286:( 283:/ 254:( 235:( 209:( 194:( 158:( 138:F 134:- 129:) 122:) 50:.

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