Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Time limits

There are a lot of different time limits for the "delayed speedy deletion" (like C1, I4, I5, I7, T3). Time limits include 48 hours after notification, 4 days, 5 days, 7 days, and (for WP:PUI) 14 days. Is there any reason why these all need to be different? If not, I am going to propose unifying them all to five days for consistency. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins having to keep track of these various intervals is just unnecessary work. At least the 4, 5 and 7 day day limits should be unified since there's little practical difference between them. Also, it's not clear to me why the WP:PUI discussion should take 14 days. From my admittedly limited experience, most of the time there is no discussion; the image just sits there with some tag applied. What is the 48 hours for? Also, images that claim to have special license release, but don't have an OTRS number (npd tag) should be deleted at the same speed as obvious copyvios. VG ☎ 10:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours (actually 2 days) is replaceable fair use images.

The NPD tag can't be the same speed as an obvious copyvio, not yet at least. Obvious copyvios are immediately deletable, but it seems reasonable to give people some time to get a verification email sent in. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would apply to all the sections in Template:CSD/Subcategories, plus Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, CSD:C1, CSD:T3, and WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't really be that much of a pain. CAT:SD keeps track of the dated deletion processes in those boxes at the top (or at least whether or not they have backlogs). No preference for changing the times. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we do change them, I'd move 4, 5, and 7 all to 7. I like the idea of ensuring that all the issues of those kinds are allowed to wait through at least one weekend since some editors aren't active on the weekdays. Also, it seems likely that if one can afford to wait 4 days before deleting, then choosing to wait 7 would also be okay. Not sure what to do with 2 days and 14 days. Dragons flight (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point about weekends. I agree they should all be changed to 7 days. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion period unification - I was thinking 5 days was good, until I read Dragons flight's comment. Some people only get to Wikipedia once a week (once in seven days) and many are away during the weekend. All formal discussions (merges, deletions, etc.) should have a seven day discussion recommendation. Bot notification deletions should be seven days as well or where a 2 day urgency is needed. In summary, policies and guidelines should only reference one of three deletion periods: Immediate (for copyvio, BLP, some speedy deletes), 2 days (not sure what the quick basis is for but this "time to cool" should be an option), 7 days (all XfD discussion, other bot speedy deletes, and generally most things). If we can get rid of the two days, that would make things very simple. -- Suntag ☼ 06:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suntag's proposal seems good to me: 7 days for all non-speedy stuff. The only thing that's not clear to me is where to put the "replaceable fair use images". The wording from Category:Replaceable_fair_use_images is "could reasonably be found or created". The "created" part makes me think this deadline should be 7 days as well. Seems a bit unreasonable to give someone just two days to go get a picture of some local attraction. VG ☎ 06:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For practical issues, if this is implemented there will be two days without AFD closures, a few of the daily categories will be left to accumulate for a while, and PUI will become even more backlogged. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Suntag. those of us who are here every day sometimes don't realise that not everyone is; in particular,there a re a number of people who only edit on weekends. 7 days makes more sense for almost everything. Anything that needs deleting faster are things not subject to delay at all. There is a point in keeping the 2 day option available, though I am not immediately sure where it would be used. A time time peak in deletions can be accommodated, especially if we know its coming--all in all, the number and the work will be equal--except, of course, if the extra two days gets some things fixed so they do not have to be deleted at all. I don';t consider the transition problem an important objection. DGG (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, wait. Isn't the point of CSD to be expedited handling of uncontroversial deletions? Is it just me or does this mean you guys are suggesting making the delay longer that that of a prod? — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't for deletions like nn-bands, just for those that are already time-delayed like images without a source or fair use without a rationale. Attack pages, nonsense, obvious copyvios etc. would still be eligible for deletion straight away. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't mean the transition to be an objection, only a note. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 48 hour limit came from Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. Which should be kept, we shouldn't keep non-free images longer than 2 days if they don't comply with wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two answers to that. First is that Category:Disputed non-free images already has, de facto or not, a 7-day waiting period, and second, well, WP:CCC. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Category:Disputed non-free images should actually be 48 hours. Regarding WP:CCC, of course, but who is saying it can't change? I just think it is a bad idea to change the 48 hours, plus to change that should not only be decided be a discussion here. Garion96 (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Stifle (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically per all the support comments in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. Garion96 (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They support deleting images which don't comply with the fair use criteria, but few address why it must be 48 hours and not 7 days. Indeed, several supporters expressed concern that the time limit was too short. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because by now all the fair use images should pass wikipedia:non-free content criteria immediately after uploading. 48 hours is already too much in a way, seven days is way too much. Regarding the other limits, I have no objection to 7 days for everything but fair use related. Including PUI, it makes sense to have that one the same as WP:CP. Both are/should be about possible copyvio's but with an assertion of PD or other free content. Garion96 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content can be broken down into two categories: Things that anyone can fix (articles, templates, etc.) and things where only one person or a small group of people likely will be the one to fix it. There may be legal ramifications to an editor supplying fair use criteria to an image page of an image that they did not upload. Also, only the uploader usually knows the URL source from where they acquired the image. When the content is something that less than all Wikipedia editors can fix, the non-discussion speedy delete times should be seven days to account for the weekend editors. I think a WikiProject should be started to keep track of all action time limits within Wikipedia. This WikiProject would allow everyone to compare existing time limits agaist when making proposed changes to a time limit. Also, it would provide a way to coordinate an effort to bring all deletion time limits into one of three periods (immediate, 48 hours (2 days), and 7 days. -- Suntag ☼ 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all that except the WikiProject, which seems like process creep. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me revive this[edit]

Among other things...

This is how we could do it. ViperSnake151 11:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. This gives people the chance to remove the speedy tag and the article drops off the radar. In any case it's not germane to the current proposal; please consider moving it back to WT:CSD. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem I see with that is that most A7 candidates have no chance of becoming an acceptable article, in a 48 hour period a backlog of hundreds of articles about MySpace only bands, people's school friends and youtube video channels would build up which would likely encourage more editors to create even more articles on all the aforementioned subjects. Guest9999 (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is important. I've had articles deleted without time to check back and update them. Give the article a chance to grow and become more detailed. 5 days is not nearly enough time! -mdkoch84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdkoch84 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]