Commons talk:Deletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Archive: 12

English only?[edit]

On which basis User:Irpen is removing User:Steschkes german comments on deletion discussions? I had a quick look around, but could not find any hint there is a policy on this. So could someone please point me to the right page? Thanks Schizoschaf 08:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In no way is commons english only. Commons is the community of communitys and is multilingual.
English happens to be in common use but thats not because of any policy
--Cat out 08:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So steschkes comments should be restored?
Disclaimer: I would do it, but am in a hurry right now. Afk for at least 12h. So if someone would have the kindness...
Schizoschaf 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
English is recommended because more people will understand. But those who don't speak English or do it with difficulties can use a different language. / Fred Chess 09:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes English is reccomended, just not required. :) --Cat out 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

Ummm... How do you archive these templates? -Samulili 08:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just move the transclusion to archive (and mark it as complete like you normaly would do). --Cat out 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For the worse[edit]

Just as I suspected, with the currect structure is much more complicated to nominate images, and it takes longer time. Why do we let those busy-bodying people who never nominate images decide the structure?

Fred Chess 08:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok nevermind... I was just upset at moment I wrote this. I'll stop complaining. It is better than it was anyways. / Fred Chess 13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it's much better than it was before. But there are still images from the previous system that should be deleted but for some reason, have not yet. --TwinsMetsFan 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding new dates[edit]

On nl.wikipedia, we've just instated a bot, which is in it's testing fase, but still has been working properly for the last week or so, which automatically adds a new day page to the nl.wikipedia equivalent of COM:DEL. Whould such a bot be a good idea here? Check nl:WP:TV's history and the contributions of Special:Contributions/Valhallasw-toolserver-botje for a quick check. Opinions? (BTW Verwijderlijst means Deletion list) NielsF 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea but bots need aproval. I dont know that process though. Several people are working on this. :) --Cat out 08:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to archive speedy deletions?[edit]

Can we agree that we don't need to close and archive speedy deleted files? If you see a red-link image that was obviously speedy deleted, just remove its entry from the template. Do you agree?

Fred Chess 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Speedy deletions aren't normally archived, so if there is no debate I don't see the need to preserve it; it's in the deletion log with a reason for deletion. Cnyborg 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm if it is listed here it automaticaly has a sub page. Cant hurt to archive it for further referance (and not have an orphan). Such archivings are nothing urgent either. --Cat out 08:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded[edit]

I have started a new (yet not so new) process for superceeded images. Since they are relatively easy to deal with (no lengthy debate). It merely lists the images to be deleted just like images per deletion on en.wiki and de.wiki. I have edited Template:SupersededSVG to accomodate the change/ Should reduce the load here. This was a bold move but I do not believe it was too terribly contraversial... --Cat out 08:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone could help to reduce
a) the older discussions
and b) the "superseded" discussions. For one person the deletion task is to much.
--ALE! ¿…? 10:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I add this file File:Egypt_Palestine_UNRWA.png - I do not understand why it must be deleted.

Lbigfoot (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreadable[edit]

Its simply impossible to read the TOC on a screen with much pixels ! the fontsize is too small. Please, change the fontsize of only 9px either to an larger size or to a relative value ( em for example) . Augiasstallputzer 10:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You can increase the font size in your web browser if you are having difficulty viewing a page. In Firefox, it's as simple as scrolling the middle roller ball on your mouse, or you could use ctrl +. Not everyone can be accommodated. --Tom (talk - email) 13:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I know to use my browser. The difference between this TOC and the other Text is too large. Either the TOC is too small or the other text is too large. A lot of user need to set a middle fontsize of 11 or 12 to read well (even when the eyes are ok) and therefore I am sure, that I am not alone with this problem. It's not ok, to create a unprofitable souce code and to compel users, to size up and down the font each change between reading TOC and reading the sections. Why not setting a relative font, (e.g 0.9 em) ? That sets the TOC-font to 90% of the other text and will solve the problem. Augiasstallputzer 08:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

excuse-me but can you tell me what you mean by TOC ? (Title of... chapter ?) For my very own case everything is finely sized. Jean-no 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The table of content, the list of sections with the tiny font of only 9px. Augiasstallputzer 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't particular understand why the ToC is small in the first place, but it seems to me the best idea is to define it through css so that individual users can set it as small or as large as they like instead of this 'i like it this way, so everyone gets it this way!' approach. Kotepho 01:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many includes[edit]

I removed the logs for 8 and 7 days ago to bring down the amount of includes (it wouldn't render). Not sure if those need to now be included somewhere else though. Hopefully we can add those days back in when stuff gets archived. I've also asked that people begin substing their !vote templates as they bloat the include size; also DRBot may need to run more often to keep down the includes of closed DRs. Any further thoughts on this? Perhaps two logs - one for the past 5 days, and one for the 5 days before that? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Commented out another day to make it render properly at COM:DR. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That day came back, but I think it is time we merge Commons:Deletion requests and Commons:Deletion requests/Older Discussions to use links pointing to the relevant log pages.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New format?[edit]

What is it with the new format? I find it very hard & annoying to find today's DR's, why can't the COM:DR page just list it, like it used to be? I'm sure I'm not the only one getting confused by this new format. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We could have today's DRs transcluded, but the previous system didn't work for technical reasons (prior discussion is somewhat scattered, but easy enough to find) Linking to each day's log is better for several reasons, not the least of which being it works.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Reloaded Tour Promo Poster.JPG[edit]

this is a poster for a tour that was posted on the artist official twitter

Hello, We need a written permission from the creator. See COM:OTRS for details. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)