MediaWiki talk:Filedelete-reason-dropdown

No moar[edit]

List is getting too long. What do we cut? IMO, there's too many copyvio ones. Rocket000 07:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - equally combine the "No"s (source/license etc)? (some wikis are worse tho!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking. How best to put that? Simply "No source, license or permission"? And yes, I just checked en.wp's. I got nothing to complain about! :) Rocket000 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. giggy _(:O) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Per deletion request"[edit]

Do you think making it easier to give this reason without linking to the deletion request is a good thing? Not a big deal, just a pet peeve of mine. :) Rocket000 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good idea. I've reverted and included my reasoning in the edit summary. —Giggy 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional del reason[edit]

I would like to add either "low-quality image of the male genitalia (per {{Nopenis}})" or just "per {{Nopenis}}" as standart so that You don't have to write that or create a deletion request for every uploaded blurred, low-quality dick. Post it if you have better ideas. If there is no responce I'll include it in two weeks.
What is the difference between MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown and MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown?
--D-Kuru (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree completely. However I've noticed that if I deleted something on the basis of "excessive genitalia" etc etc it may lead to an undelete request. As such I tend to "mute" my delete reasons sometime ;) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously "out of scope" does actually cover it allowing for my interpretation of scope. Not against - just thinking aloud. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that the dropdown is for very common and generic reasons - that is not a generic nor excessively common reason. As such, probably a bad idea. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the second question, this one is for stuff in the Image: (soon to be File:, I believe) namespace. MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown is for stuff in other namespaces (eg. galleries, userspace, etc.). I agree with Herby that penises generally fall under (or rather, don't fall under) (apologies for pun) the project scope. Giggy (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup in deletion reasons[edit]

Under Content-related reasons we have a few deletion reasons that is not in consistance with COM:SPEEDY:

Out of project scope
Commons is not an amateur porn
Promotional content

Having these listed as reasons to delete may lead some admins to think it is ok to speedy delete with that reason.

I suggest we remove these reasons. If an admin for some reason think it is ok to delete anyway I think the best would be that the admin types in the reason manually. --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least "Out of project scope" and "promotional content" is also listed at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, so it doesn't make sense to remove it here. And some uploads of amateur porn is just worth a speedy delete (if someone has a different opinion he might ask some Admin to review this delete). So ... keep ;-) axp_de ^Hello! 09:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that does not mean that it is according to policies. If some user adds it because (s)he thinks "Lets delete (whatever)" that does not mean it is suddenly ok to do so. But I agree it does not make sence only to remove it one place. --MGA73 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a link for the porno comment Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Archive_6#Out-of-scope_decisions_should_not_be_speedy_deletion_criteria_for_files. As you can see it was suggested that it should be allowed to speedy sexual content but it was rejected. So if an admin speedy such images they violate policies. That got Jimbo desysopped and I think it is a bad idea to lead admins to think it is ok to speedy. --MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the idea. Also "No Freedom of Panorama in the source country" was a discussion on the village pump. That might be considered in the future but for now I think we can rid of those three reasons per MGA73. Zoo Fari 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done They are now removed. --MGA73 (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undid. Clearify the COM:PORN thing and dont mix up that dispute with the valid reasons of COM:PS and COM:ADVERT. Those two should stay. --Martin H. (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Martin H and Axpde! The reasons should stay, because they are valid and important things in daily usage. abf «Cabale!» 15:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They violate COM:SPEEDY#Speedy_deletion and admins should follow policies. Admins risk a desysop if they delete against policies. So what is the point of having these deletion reasons? --MGA73 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as for scope you say it is used for vandalism. There is "Vandalism" - just use that. --MGA73 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not always appropriate. Any file that is not free is not in scope of Commons, so for almost all deletions a summary "not in scope" is fully appropriate and can be used. Aditionally File:Boa constructor.pdf e.g., which is a page converted into a file format, is almost surely out of scope as per "A page can be deleted if it is:[...] A page that falls outside of Commons scope." as per COM:SPEEDY, COM:PS#Excluded_educational_content and COM:PS#Non-allowable_reasons_for_PDF_and_DjVu_formats. --Martin H. (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "page" is not the same as a "file". This is a page Example images and this is a file File:Example.jpg. Try to pres delete and you will notice that the dropdown is different for the two examples. Pages use MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown and files uses MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown. So your example is not relevant.

If you read SPEEDY again you should notice: "A file or page can be listed for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests in the following cases: ... The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose" As examples is mentioned "without obvious educational use." and "Advertising or self-promotion.". So the policy is very clear: DO NOT SPEEDY!. If you do not agree with policy suggest a change. You or any other admins should not make up your own rules and revert users that try to follow the policy.

This File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg is also just text. It is our 5.000.000 file. Should I speedy this as "out of scope"? No of course not. We have many pdf files that is text but is within scope. Therefore we need a DR to decide if file is in scope or not. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That example is something very different, I never argued agains that upload, I have some uplaods like that done myself. Have you read the links? There is a difference between your and my example and a biiig difference between articles etc in pdf format (uploaded in evasion of wikipedia or uploaded because of unawarenes, whatever) and a pdf posted to store scans of historic material or maybe even other recently created pdfs with freely licensed publications that worth debating. This difference is outlined in the project scope, therefore I ask if you read that. File:Boa constructor.pdf does not realy worth any discussion, it is simply out of scope and should never have been uploaded. --Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links tell what the scope is and SPEEDY tell us what to do with files out of scope => start a DR. And if you think this file is out of scope just start a DR and the file will be gone in 7 days unless someone has a good reason to keep. --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is essentially raw text (such files are not considered media files). COM:PS#Non-allowable_reasons_for_PDF_and_DjVu_formats. --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this allows speedy deletions of pdf and DjVu files then change the deletion reason "Out of project scope" to "Out of project scope: pdf or DjVu file that only contain text" (and make it link to the right heading) so it tell admins that this reason only apply for pdf and DjVu. At the moment this reason is also used for .jpg and .png files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for discussion of course. And yes, e.g. myself just used it for a jpg. I however dont like your suggestion. Out of scope can be a valid speedy reason and actually both content related reasons you left over [1] (+ADVERT as well as PORN that I restored) are nothing but pointers to the Commons:Project scope. If that is ok it cant be incorrect to have the COM:PS reason directly available. Also your suggestions sounds to much as if text files of the kind described in COM:PS get deleted all the time, thats not the case too, apparently it seems to be a disputed or unclear deletion reason. One may say regretably because Commons is full of what I'd call CV spam from non-notable, occasional visitors of our project who decided that this might be an awsome place to do some self-promotion. Apparently that spam is not speedydeleted all the time. --Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my suggestion that scope, porn and adverts is not a valid speedy option. It is the excisting policy that says so. As for the porn it was suggested to make it a speedy reason in the sexual content policy but that policy was rejected (one of the reasons was that porn should not be a valid speedy reason). So what I'm trying to do is to get the deletion reasons to match our excisting policies. What is wrong with that? --MGA73 (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Spam is out of scope - there is quite a lot of it (including user page/CV spam as stated. Can someone explain the purpose of the {{Nopenis}} template if such (usually very poor quality) images are within scope...? At least the delete reasons previously give some information to the uploader if they care to read them. Sadly if we are going down this route and allowing folk to pollute Commons with utter junk there will be one less active admin to clear the junk. The atmosphere here has not been pleasant for a while now and this is really the icing on the cake I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I've added one for COM:LR. That's the best wording I could come up with, feel free to improve or revert if bad idea. --ZooFari 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Herby that there are countless pictures of garage band members used only in en.wp user space. I delete the user space pages there per w:WP:CSD#G11 - it would stand to reason that the pictures should be speedy deleted as well. If you'd like to add more cases - like blatant spam - to the speedy delete policy, I will give strong support there. Otherwise, we are just going to add to the backlog at COM:DR and CAT:U which is already months behind. Wknight94 ^talk 14:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no general problem with garage bands or adverts; there is also spam by Commons regulars. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree however I have been persuaded that if we get some useful content some self promotion should be allowed - the decisions on the borderline of that are judgement calls. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not sure who or what Pieter Kuiper is referring to but I am referring to people who create an account and upload 1 or 2 or 3 pictures, all of themselves playing instruments or the like, and then disappearing. Wikipedia and Commons become a new Facebook for them. Wknight94 ^talk 15:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it brief - "yes" --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People uploading a few images are much less of problem than the regulars spamming hundreds of images, sometimes with elaborate vanity templates. Several people come to mind, but I want to give admin Cirt as an example of spamming. Uploading all this xenu-tv stuff is a much greater problem for Commons than a few free pictures of products. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPEEDY clearly allows these and suggestion otherwise is misleading. Hell, this shows that it isn't a closed rational group as argued: "for other reasons for speedy deletions". I am disappointed in users substituting their own opinion for what is clearly written, as such actions are incivil. Out of Scope -is- a clear rationale provided regardless of what is claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion verifies that there were no definitive criteria put in place so treatment of it as "hard and fast rules" is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We all have to keep commons clean, but based on the amount of daily uploads, admins have to filter those, and if files are obviously out of scope (spam, advert, porn, etc.) they have to be deleted. Ok, maybe some relevant file will be deleted as well, but IMHO it's more easy to request the undeletion of one accidently deleted file than to request the deletion of hundreds of (obviuous) cases ... axp_de ^Hello! 15:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If some are getting hung up on the wording or structure of the speedy delete policy, then let's change that rather than change a common practice that works fine and improves project quality 99.9% of the time. Wknight94 ^talk 15:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me to discuss policy if someone thinks the policy is not up to date. --MGA73 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with removing of speedy deletions reasons contradicting to our policy. "Practice" (better word is "malpractice") of some admins is nothing if it wasn't endorsed by the community. "Out of scope" speedy deletions are 1) unnecessary -- it's very easy to nominate such pictures for a DR, and there are not so much speedy deletion cases to flood the DR process (see the logs). Out of scope pictures are not harmful -- they are neither vandalism nor copyvio, so there is no need to hurry up the deletion process. 2) very problematic -- it's too easy to make a mistake in "scope" evaluation for an admin, but deleted pictures can't be community reviewed. "Scope" of the project should be defined by the community, not by a bunch of admins. Trycatch (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope can be a valuable reason for deletion. If the policy does not say so, we need to amend it. I just came accross a case: File:010-721-money4112.jpg, and File:Photoshoot-picz-1-Jan.2011.jpg. These 2 images are clearly out of scope: personal pictures, the quality is very poor; taken in a private place, the subject is minor and we do not have a permission. We do not need to keep these images for a week before deleting them. Porn and spam are obviously valuable reasons for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A week? I am seeing scope-related DRs staying open for months. DR has gotten very strange - two nearly-identical images nominated for identical reasons, and one will take a week while the other takes 4 months. Wknight94 ^talk 13:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not because there is a huge backlog of DRs than we need to change the current practice. That won't clear the blacklog... Yann (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me -- I'm coming in very late to a very long discussion. There's a lot of discussion above about removing non-speedy reasons from the drop down list. This ignores the fact that the list is the same for all deletions, speedy and not. There are at least three classes of deletions:

Speedy -- which use this list
DR closures -- of which almost all use the script and not this list
On sight deletions of new material that obviously should be deleted. These are about thirty percent of my deletions -- mostly galleries with one line biographies of non-notable people, test pages, vandalism, promo, two line articles with no images, and so forth. This group uses the same drop down list we are discussing here and "out-of-scope" is my most frequent hit.

So, I think the discussion above about eliminating reasons that don't qualify as speedy misses a big point. I also say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it -- I like the list just the way it is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is the problem. You like it because you think some things should be speedy deleted. Problem is that there are different opinions on what should be deleted. We have a policy that tells us what to speedy delete and what not to speedy delete. But we also have some admins that say "I don't care about policy. I don't like this file so I delete it." As long as these reasons stay on this list it can be used as an excuse not to follow the policy.

If you start a DR you get a second opinion. If you speedy you do not. So if admins speedy delete they have a bigger responsibility and I think the consequences should be harder if you make mistakes. So how many mistakes should we allow before we start a desysop? 5? 10? 100?

It seems I'm the only one than thinks we should correct this. So I guess I have to change the policy instead. --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you' have to change the policy?!? axp_de ^Hello! 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim is clearly talking about out-of-scope deletions of galleries (not files), which do not normally use this page (MediaWiki:Delete-reason-dropdown instead), so any change here will not affect that. Speedy deletions for "out of scope" are in policy and perfectly acceptable in all namespaces (including File: space, if someone writes an WP type article at File:article that's out of scope).--Nilfanion (talk)

Yes Axpde. Someone has to make sure policy is up to date and since noone else have done so it might as well be me that changes the policy. --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See further discussion here. --MGA73 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reshuffling/rephrasing of contents[edit]

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_for_admins:_Speedy_Deletions. Reh man 13:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some rephrasing per no objections (on the rephrasing part) at the administrators noticeboard. If you have any objections on this change, please consider posting it on this page before you revert. You may also want to see the summary of the original proposal.

If no objections are shown on the referencing part, it will also be done in about two weeks from now. Reh man 11:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why oh why have lost "out of scope" on pages? That is madness - the "generic" "no valid content" is not helpful to newbies. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to have only one "out of scope"? Reh man 13:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no out of scope options on gallery deletions now... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confused.... There are 3 currently, #2, #3, and #4... Reh man 13:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a gallery page there are no "out of scope" reasons in the drop down box now - try it and see (& that is since this am UTC time). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said several times above, the whole discussion and these changes were made from the point of view of deletion of Files, particularly speedy deletes. Herbythyme and I delete a lot of Gallery pages while on New Page Patrol, and the changes have knocked out my most frequently used reasons, as shown in the list above. No matter, however, I'll add them back as needed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The order is also more than a bit bizarre - since when has the top deletion reason for an image not been "copyvio"...! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what the hell happened to the non free Flickr license reason? Why do we need to play with this? It is not helpful to users who might take a look at the reason and learn something and it sure as hell is unhelpful to folk actually doing the work. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]