Wikipedia collogue:Criteria for speedy deletion
RfC - Establish policy by moving draft here[eedit soorce]
(in Inglis) Speedy deletion policy established
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policy be established by moving Uiser:My hat stinks/draft/Criteria for speedy deletion? my_hat_stinks (tauk) 14:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aye. I don't imagine there'd be any objections, but I thought it would be important to get a RfC before any policy changes. The current policy is not useful and ironically could be removed by it's own rules. The draft has what I consider to be the more important criteria that should be established asap, other criteria can be added as needed with another RfC. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 14:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ay. (en) I agree. The current policy (if you can call it that) should be replaced ASAP. Entohist (tauk) 14:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aye. (en) Seems reasonable. I do think a few more could be added, like spam and routine maintenance, but this seems like a good start and better than the current "policy". PiRSquared17 (tauk) 15:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aye - Current policy isnae fit fur purpose, awsae support PiR's proposed amendments CiphriusKane (tauk) 16:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: @Entohist, PiRSquared17, and CiphriusKane: Three new criteria were added to the draft page; If that changes your opinion of this RfC, you can edit your comments. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 16:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good to me! I would still add blatant advertising/spam though. PiRSquared17 (tauk) 16:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Disna chynge ma thochts. Still Ay. Entohist (tauk) 17:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Fit they said CiphriusKane (tauk) 17:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aye. Anely point is 'Vandalism an hoaxes' descrives whit hoaxes ar but no vandalism. soothrhins (tauk) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aye to start James Hyett (tauk) 15:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Aye policy is needit an this is a guid stairt Monospaced (tauk) 16:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC - Useless disambiguation pages[eedit soorce]
Nae comments, nae consensus
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Establish a policy to remove useless disambiguation pages by adding the below text to the General section. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 20:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
| ==== Uissless Disambiguation pages ====
Applies tae ony disambiguation page if it disnae airt tae ony existin pages, or if the name ends wi " (disambiguation)" and it ainly airts tae wan airticle. If it ainly airts tae wan page but the name disnae end wi "(disambiguation)" it shuid be chynged intae a redirect insteid, unless the page this airts tae is gaunae be muived. This criteria can be uised fur a page endin wi "(disambiguation)" if it redirects tae a page that isnae a disambiguation page an aw. |
- Aye. I saw a few pages marked
{{Delete}}this morning that would match this criteria, would be good to have. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 20:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC - Change "No Scots" criteria name[eedit soorce]
Tae be implemented; grammar chynge wi nae objections
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the "No Scots" criteria be renamed "Isnae Scots"? my_hat_stinks (tauk) 12:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Aye. I think it's clearer, I keep reading "No scots" as the English meaning first. I think it might confuse non-native speakers. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 12:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sud iss policy be enactit in its current form?[eedit soorce]
Tae be implemented
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A hink the ainly hing iss page is needin is a spell check an shid be reidy tae be pit intae uiss. Ainly hing a hink aat cid impruive it is ensaumples ae invalid criteria (sic as bein in a speceific byleid)
- Support - as OP CiphriusKane (tauk) 19:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Aye - The ainly hing A'd say is thit A like "Isnae Scots" insteid o "No Scots" oan the Define an Airticle sections, an that's whit's oan the main page the nou. Sorts ony Inglis/Scots ambiguity if we wir tae chynge that. my_hat_stinks (tauk) 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Changed CiphriusKane (tauk) 19:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Eik in a new criteria: T1: Unuised templates[eedit soorce]
 | An editor haes requestit comments frae ither editors for this discussion. |
"Ony template that isna uised on ony page that isnae a maintenance template. Sic templates sud nae be uised in ony capacity on the wiki an sud be unuised fur at least fower day afore bein deletit"
The primar aim ae iss is tae deal wi templates that exist bit hae nae purpose on the wiki, siclik navboxes athoot ony valid extant airtins CiphriusKane (tauk) 22:28, 17 Juin 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Eik in a temporary criteria: X1: Law quality airticles bi Scotchers[eedit soorce]
| An editor haes requestit comments frae ither editors for this discussion. |
"Ony airticle creatit by onybody leetit at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Kirkyaird/massive, includin aw kent alts, gin seyed airticle haesnae been gien sufficient reddin."
Ae problem aat the VfD didna address wis the prevalence ae ae Scotcher, Fixer88, ti uise IPs an alts ti mass create law effort an unreferenced stubs. Iss temporar category wid alloo us ti delete the airticles fur the same raeson statit in the VfD, athoot the limit ae maintenance, vandalism, or non-constructiv eedits makin the criteria invalid. Iss disna extend ti airticles faar there haes been ae effort ti bring it up ti staundarts CiphriusKane (tauk) 22:28, 17 Juin 2023 (UTC)
- Bi "bring it up ti staundarts", a mean clear effort haes been makit ti mend the Scots, expaund the airticle an mak it encyclopaedic bi eikin in suitable references an content insteid ae jist bein unreferenced permastubs CiphriusKane (tauk) 22:41, 17 Juin 2023 (UTC)
Aye (en) This makes sense because not every article would've been caught by Wikipedia:Kirkyaird. –MJL ‐Tauk‐☖ 17:40, 18 Juin 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Eik in a new criteria: A5: Unreferenced airticle anent ae livin body[eedit soorce]
| An editor haes requestit comments frae ither editors for this discussion. |
"Ony airticle anent ae body yet livin that disna hae guid reliable references, speicial fur airticles wi controversial chairges"
In speerit, iss is ae stapgap ti mak summat kin ti enwiki's WP:BLP policy. We need ae proper policy in place fur iss, bit in the meantime iss sud help deal wi aa the BLFs (biographies o livin fowk) aat hae nae references avaa CiphriusKane (tauk) 22:28, 17 Juin 2023 (UTC)