both have at least five more specific subtemplates.) - Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Reply Broadening G8 to apply to sub-pages sounds like a good idea. There is infrastructure to be created doesn't each criterion have its dedicated template? Waltham, The Duke of 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Reply Oh, right. I didn't expect the addition of a criterion to the list to be conducted so matter-of-factly, though, even if uncontroversial. Personally, I agree with Ilmari Karonen that the interpretation of the criteria should be stricter, as there is less potential for abuse this way. Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 01:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Reply My main question was to see if the criterion was used in a wider sense than what the phrasing indicated I did not know if there was such a precedent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Reply As I've stated before, I dislike this increasingly common habit of using G6 as a catch-all criterion for everything not covered by the other criteria, but I do agree that these should obviously be speedied. Might be worth mentioning directly there, but evidently it does (had a fair few of these deleted under G6 myself, so it's already in operation). Waltham, The Duke of 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Reply Yes. Is there a reason that G10 shouldn't be used for legal threats? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Reply Does the deletion of a documentation page for a deleted template fall under G6?Īnd if not, would it be a valid idea for a new template criterion? Template:S-fic/doc is what provokes this question. Though I do agree that there is some overlap between G3 and G10. Rossami, maybe 0.333 per day? X clamation point 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Reply I think it can be plausibly said that any legal threat can be considered an attack page, though not every legal threat or attack page can be considered vandalism. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Reply Yet the same can be said for G10 and G3. I have modified the wording of G10 to clearly include this. Can you give us actual numbers? How many per day are you seeing? Rossami (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Reply Ī page that is entirely legal threat would easily qualify as an attack page, G10. (See bullet three of the 'new criteria' standards at the top of this talk page.) A few over the course of weeks doesn't yet seem like enough to me. The proposal faded away last time because it didn't seem to occur often enough to justify the instruction creep of yet another CSD criterion.What do others think? X clamation point 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Reply Just in the past few weeks, I've seen multiple cases of legal threat pages being made. I'm not sure why this got off the ground, as such legal threats should be removed without the need for a minimum of 5 days in PROD. A new CSD criteria was suggested, for Legal threats. This was previously proposed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#G9?. 59 There are currently a number of record lables tagged.54 G12 Copyright infringement when author is the same.49 A page for incorrect speedy deletions.46 speedy delete policy - 4 days or 72 hours?.45 Is a redirected article a nonexistent page?.35 Criterion I7, divergence between policy & template language.34 G3 and hoaxes, is it always "vandalism"?.33 Link db-album to A9 in the dropdown?.29 Delayed speedy deletion - time limits.28 How strict is A7 importance or significance?.25.2 the artist's article has never existed.23.2 Arbitrary break to discuss an example.23 Speedy delete taggers are getting out of hand.22 A7: Assertion of notability - only for some article types?.21 Proposal: expand R2 to Image namespace.18 Duplicate articles - ineligible for speedy?.11 Articles on recent financial market crashes.10 Can some admin fix the template for A7?.8 A2 and deleted articles on other wikis?.7 Speedy delete a stub because it is a stub?. 2 Does the deletion of a documentation page for a deleted template fall under G6?.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |