MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown

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

no media on page[edit]

According to Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Speedy_deletion, "no media on page" is not a reason for speedy deletion, so I removed it... comments welcome!

Fred J (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I find that useful for deleting empty image pages. I'm sure that's a good enough reason for speedy deletion. Also, galleries without any media aren't really galleries then (although normally I use the "test page" or "out of scope" option for those pages). Rocket000 08:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Empty image pages are okay to delete... Less good when these kind of pages get speedy deleted: [1] (refering to the deletion made Jan 7) since it's not within policy.... With a rephrazing it should be okay. / Fred J (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Fred - certainly my intention was the empty image pages which at a quick look would not have seemed "valid" deletions, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. / Fred J (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Now I see what you were talking about. The rephrasing makes sense. Rocket000 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Page is test, spam, vandalism or bot created"[edit]

Can't we remove the "bot created" part? --Kanonkas(talk) 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its usefull. We do have spam-bots. abf /talk to me/ 18:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well "spam" would cover that I guess. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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.
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not enough of them to make it a "reason"? I user the out of scope one (usually) --Herby talk thyme 14:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing the list[edit]

Any objection to changing Page is test, spam, vandalism or bot created to two options: Page is spam, vandalism or bot created and Test page. Please use the sandbox. I think it is more new-user friendly considering most admins don't contact the new user to let them know where to make such edits. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. While we've brought this up - I was thinking if we could remove the "bot created" part? --Kanonkas(talk) 13:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
1 minute to spare :) Agree with both the above. Wouldn't mind getting in a reason that said something about "promotional" rather than "spam" as it rarely is actually spam. I tend to end up using "project scope" warnings as it is (rather) more friendly? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In which case, I think it would be best to give them all their own line. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done by Rjd0060. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Not expecting any issues, so I've made the changes. Thanks Kanonkas and Herby for the comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki messages[edit]

I think it could probably be useful to have a deletion reason for when deletion MediaWiki messages equal to the default. Just recently, I used "default", but this isn't really descriptive for newbies. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"No valid content"[edit]

Where would this be used? Wouldn't the other options cover it (and be more informative)? Rocket000 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Belated answer -- here for another reason -- I use "No valid content" when maybe it is vandalism, maybe just nonsense, maybe a test page. "No valid content" is non-confrontational and covers the range of possibilities without having to figure out what the creator's intentions really were.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Page is out of project scope[edit]

I use this more than all others combined, with a sub-comment which comes out of my edit summary suggestions. Would anybody object if I moved it to the top of the list?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Did some sorting, is this ok with you? axpdeHello! 09:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked for a little and got a lot -- thank you. I may tinker with it a little as I get accustomed to the new arrangement, but it certainly makes it faster.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup in deletion reasons[edit]

Just a link to a discussion to clean up in deletion reasons MediaWiki_talk:Filedelete-reason-dropdown#Cleanup_in_deletion_reasons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reshuffling/rephrasing of contents[edit]

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_for_admins:_Speedy_Deletions. Rehman 13:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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. Rehman 11:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I miss an option that I used daily: Empty deletion requests log. I will add it again, because I need it. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. But you may use "Test page, accidental creation, or page with no valid content or other patent nonsense" instead IMO, simply to avoid duplicating (as they are closely related). Rehman 11:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Del-reason dropdown.png
  • Rehman: check this [2], the namespace specific deletion doesn't show up if the file doesn't exist but the page itself does. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 17:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This is normal. This happens because there is no "file" but just "page" history. If there was a file it would fetch MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown instead. Currently, the software recognizes the page as just a main-space (gallery) content. You may delete the page per "File that is corrupt, empty, or in an unauthorized format".
I was looking for the venue where the "fetching" instructions were saved, to change it to fetch only one page, so that you don't have to duplicate the content on two pages (instead, use the standard SWITCH function), but I don't seem to be able to find where that venue is located... Rehman 00:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that's why we had all these namespace specific reasons, perhaps you should consider putting back some of these. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the best thing is to instruct the software to fetch only MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. That way we could list all on a single page, and reduce confusion, and avoid technical problems like the one you mentioned. I just don't seem to be able to find where to make that modification. Tried redirecting, but that doesn't work... Rehman 04:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You should open a ticket in Bugzilla, I don't think there is something we can do here to merge both. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposals at bugzilla takes ages to "process", but I'll give it a go. Rehman 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: Bugzilla:27067. Rehman 13:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
┌───────────────────────┘
Okay, per the results of the bug mentioned above, I'll be doing a little test shortly. If it works, all the deletion dropdowns will be fetched from this page only, and not MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown. If it doesn't work, I'll simply revert myself and leave it as it is for now. Please pardon me if I caused any inconveniences during this short "testing" period. Rehman 06:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making changes without prior discussion[edit]

1) I don't like having namespace specific items on top -- 90% of my deletions are general. 2) We seem to have lost "nonsense" and "No Valid Content", both of which I use a lot. And, in general, I'd rather have it imperfect than have it changing constantly.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Jim - tidiness/organisation is wonderful - usability is far more important. --Herby talk thyme 14:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was moved to the bottom, but it was not. I now see that it was because MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown was merged here, because of that the file delete reasons were at the bottom again and I had to scroll down to find the Copyright violation reason. Most deletions (the manually executed deletions, not that script assisted deletions in the deletion requests) are copyvio deletions. Therefore for the file namespace having the filenamespace specific reasons on top is usuablity. --Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Martin, given that you are the second most active Admin, I find it hard to argue with your logic and, anyway, my problem is not what order they appear in, it is changes.
We need to remember that, among us, we do about 1,000 deletions a day and have often had a backlog. Anything that slows us down is bad, including incremental tweaks to the list. I'd like it if we could agree in advance on changes and then do them no more than once a month. I can work with any list, but once I've learned where things are in a given list, I don't like learning a new one every couple of days.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Same for me. I was surprised by the again changed sorting and moved it back to the top. Any new sollution should please make sure that for the filenamespace the deletion reasons are placed at the top. --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed three entries because they are basically duplicates:

  • Inappropriate use of talkpages dupe of Out of project scope, Content intended as vandalism, threat, or attack, etc
  • Orphaned talkpage dupe of Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content
  • Unneeded talkpage redirect dupe of Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirects

The change would go mostly unnoticed by the majority of admins who deal with non-talkpages... Rehman 06:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Talk pages are not part of the project itself, talking about the scope is not within the scope, that's what talk pages are good for!
Furthermore Orphaned talkpage is better understandable than Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content.
And Unneeded talkpage redirect is neat and simple, those redirects are neither "unused", "umplausible", "broken" nor "cross-namespace"! axpdeHello! 10:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

I will be reflecting the content from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion to this dropdown in a few days. Please do comment on the accuracy/etc of the page here. If there are no reasonable objections, the dropdown would look something like:

  • F2. Personal events, and/or non-educational content.

Thus having no links in the deletion log except for the alphanumeric prefix which (in the above case) would link to COM:CSD#F2. This would shorten/unclutter the deletion log, and enable us to provide a more detailed explanation on the reason why the content was deleted (at the target page at COM:CSD), thus actually helping the author/uploader understand on current policies better, and potentially reducing the current "user ignorance" level (where currently users actually don't fully understand the deletion reason in the log, and mostly ignore it and reupload). Rehman 06:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

First, as I have said several times before, this dropdown list is used for all deletions -- not just speedies. That includes closing DRs (while Files are usually deleted by using the default message provided by DelReqHandler, other DR deletions must use this drop down) and deleting the wide range of things found on New Page Patrol. Please do not tailor the list for only a fraction of its users.
Second, while I agree that the listed messages can be cryptic, the solution is to expand the list so that we do not combine three reasons on one line and, instead, provide more detail on each reason. A cryptic alphanumeric prefix will help no one.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, that's true. What I meant above is that the text will be made similar to those mentioned at COM:CSD (with the prefix link). As for the non-CSD part, DR are usually closed as Deleted per: [DR link], so I don't think we need a line for that (we don't have one currently). But of course, we could add an additional criteria Deleted per deletion request: [ADD LINK], if other admins agree. I haven't missed anything else, have I? Rehman 11:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify. When closing a DR on a File:, I think most Admins use DelReqHandler, which automatically provides a link to the DR. No problem. When closing a DR on anything else, you have to go to the dropdown between the star and the searchbox. On the delete page, I usually pull down the appropriate reason in the upper box and add the link to the DR in the lower one. So there might be reasons on the dropdown list that are not legitimate speedy deletions -- I say "might" -- I don't feel strongly about it because ultimately the link back to the DR in the second box provides what is really needed.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As already mentioned on Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, I strongly oppose adding abbreviations to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. We are on Commons, not en.wikipedia, and we do not want to copy this. --Leyo 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply there; we should not stop an improvement just because enwiki follows a similar strategy. Rehman 13:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
An improvement according to your opinion… Wehret den Anfängen! ;-) --Leyo 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Google translate doesn't make sense ;-) Rehman 13:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, something is not an improvement just because enwiki uses it. To be clear, I'm also against using those kinds of codes. Killiondude (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to second Leyo: Those abbriviations in enwp are quite confusing (even for me) and extreme wikispeak. We should try to avoid this if we want newbies to understand and not get scared away. Thanks to Rehman for trying to improve - but please not this way. :-)
Maybe we can do it that way: Personal events, and/or non-educational content? Although the linked text is a bit too much. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Now why didn't I think of that? ;-) Although maybe a bit ugly (for the big link), it does the purpose, funnels a user's attention to a single link and, in this case, to a nice big sentence. I think this is a perfect workaround, considering the many community opposes to the alphanumeric prefix. :-) Rehman 00:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 :-) this came to my mind: the problem with the one single, big link is that it does not stand out of all the links in someone's watchlist. However, I tried it with an edit at User:Saibo/Sandbox3 (watch this page and look in your watchlist) - it is okay for me. --Saibo (Δ) 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

AjaxQuickDelete[edit]

I would be interested in a dropdown of reasons in the AjaxQuickDelete for "normal users". Often I have the problem that I'd like to provide an exact reason to the user, why I nominated for speedy - deletion (often derative or fair-use). Therefore I have to navigate to the user's talk page and add another template. Who is "responsible" for this script? Do all sysops have permission to change a .js? Thanks --RE RILLKE Questions? 13:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See the history of MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js. Yes, all admins can edit MediaWiki pages. --Leyo 13:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok on common.js I found: Maintainer: User:DieBuche. Thanks. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes[edit]

Although the edit comment says that these are derived from consensus, I was unaware of the discussion -- I know that speedy deletes have been under discussion, but these changes also reach those of us who do other deletes, particularly new page patrol.

I note also that all of the new reasons are headed "CSD" -- I think that you forget that these dropdowns apply to all deletions, not just speedys. In the case of a speedy, the explanation for the deletion will come from the {{speedy}} template. In others, particularly those done by Admins in new page patrol, there will be no {{speedy}} and the explanation should come, as it did before, from the drop down.

I do not understand the elimination of the simple "out-of-scope COM:SCOPE choice. I would say that most of the pages I see in new page patrol need that choice -- particularly if I can't read them. While "User intended to create encyclopedic content" covers many of those cases, often I simply don't know what was intended -- Arabic, or Chinese, for example -- but know from the absence of images that the gallery was out of scope. "Test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content" covers this, but implies that the page was an error, rather than one that is simply out of scope. I think that it is important in such cases that the user be given a link to COM:Scope, as the old choice did.

While on that subject, I note that we have eliminated all the links to explanatory material. Doesn't the user deserve that? Or, are you assuming that the new page patroller is going to go separately to the user's talk page and add it? Not me, thank you.

I also miss "User intended to create a Category but did not use Category: as a prefix." About 10% of the New Page Patrol pages fit this choice. About half the time the user knows that he made a mistake, but half the time he does not and it is helpful to have a deletion reason that speaks specifically to this frequent error.

I'm sure there will be more like these as I work through today's new pages, but this is a start.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Start to get fed up with those permanent restructuring. We have to use that, remember. I need improperly named categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Rehman for reverting the changes. I don't know how you want to proceed, but I'd be happy to leave things as they were. If you want to make major changes to the drop-down list, then it needs to be clear to all editors that the discussion is about changes to the drop-down list, not just to the criteria for speedy deletion, which is only a subset of all deletions. In particular, please insure that all of the following are aware of it, as they, collectively, do more than half of all deletions and will probably have opinions:
  • EugeneZelenko
  • Fastily
  • Foroa
  • Jameslwoodward
  • Jcb
  • Martin H. (im watching this page already and anyway I dont think I need more invitation than any other participant of the project. --Martin H. (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC))
  • Túrelio
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Whenever my time allows I'm trying to reduce the backlog of Category:Duplicate and it's subcat, and I'm aware of all CSD. Ok, most of the time I need "exact duplicate" or "improperly named duplicate", but sometimes I need more specific reasons which I added whenever needed. Actually this drop down list should help us doing an endless job, not worrying which number of CSD suits best ... axpdeHello! 19:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

As discussed at #Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion above, instead of an alphanumeric-prefix link for the entries in the dropdown, the entire log entry will be one single link pointing to the relevant detailed explanation at COM:CSD.

This has one major advantage; enable us to provide a more brief/clear explanation on the reason why the content was deleted (instead of linking keywords from the logs, pointing to larger more complex/confusing pages), thus helping the author/uploader understand on current policies better (and avoiding bad reuploads). I know for a fact that the current logs are bad; many (like me, in my early days) wouldn't really bother reading the large page(s) the log entry links to. It has to be brief and clear, and not spanning over many pages.

As for the "these dropdowns apply to all deletions, not just speedys"; yes the dropdowns technically apply for both, but all entries in the dropdown refer to speedys, if the deletion is for a DR, then "Other reason" should be selected, with the discussion link placed in the field below. If there is no discussion, then it is a speedy.

In my honest opinion, I do not see any downsides in this move; it is a net positive. I look forward to constructive comments. If there are no valid reasons to refrain from making the change by a week, I shall be bold, and take silence as consensus. Rehman 03:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Rehman, but I disagree strongly. You completely ignore the third major class of deletes -- New Page Patrol.
What follows is largely a rehash of what I said above on 14 May. You have not addressed any of those comments, so I will just say them again, in different words.
Today happens to be my one year anniversary as an Admin. In that time, I have made almost 19,000 deletions. Of those, approximately 7,000 were New Page Patrol, for which your Speedy Deletion list is often not relevant. Using your new system, I would have to hand write comments for about 4,000 deletes a year.
The two missing items that I use often are:
  • User intended to create a category but did not use the ":Category" prefix -- sometimes when this happens, the user has an "oops" moment and knows it's a problem, but often he doesn't realize it. Without it, many of these will end up on my talk page -- "Why did you delete my category?"
And, yes, I understand that you could use Unintentionally created gallery for this, but the user will think that is itself a mistake -- he thought that he created a category not a gallery. These are about 10% of my NPP.
  • Out of Scope --Often you don't know exactly what the user intended -- although many of us can recognize a biography in most European languages, few of us read languages that aren't written in the Latin alphabet, but all of us can see that a page full of text is out of scope as a Commons Gallery. The CSD reasons are too specific -- they require that the Admin know what the user intended. They need a general catch-all, perhaps [[COM:CSD#GA5|Out of scope]]. These are about half of my NPP.
Finally, I don't like the one-page layout of the links. Many of the people seeing these will be newbies. If you click on Unintentionally created gallery you get a page of short notes -- sure, the one you want is at the top, but will the newbie realize that? (At first glance, I didn't realize it). I would much prefer to see the explanations set forth on separate pages, so that the user would see only the one that was applicable. While this has a very small cost in extra storage, it has an off-setting very small gain in bandwidth use, since only the applicable paragraph will be served up.
So, my requests would be to add two sections and reorganize the links. I think that's all I have, but there may be one or two more once I start using the new system.
And, again, I think you should leave a note about this for all of the people listed above. While our votes and thoughts are no more important than others, when you are making major changes, asking the opinion of major contributors is both polite and smart. Without that, you may well get strong reactions from one or more people who did not know it was happening, just as I reacted above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"Out Of Scope" was removed from the list, per discussion/consensus from here, or maybe links from there. The general criteria was basically split to GA3 and GA4. I personally like that criteria too. Of course, you are welcome to voice your opinion there, and change things if you may.
I don't work on NPP as yet. May I ask what criteria is missing for admins working at NPP? Also, if there ever was really something missing, or something that is being discussed to be added/removed, we can always add/remove them as they appear. There's no need to block the whole lot out for one or two missing/extra criterias.
And as for the single-page explanation of all criterias; I am sure that is much more easier-to-understand and helpful (in showing the reader the reasons which content might be deleted), compared to the current huge novel-like pages that is, in my honest opinion, very uncomfortable to read.
As for notifying others; please don't get me wrong, but I am not entirely comfortable with posting private notifications to selected admins. I could, if you ask, cross-post notices to COM:ANB or COM:BN or any other general discussion page. Rehman 05:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have the feeling I'm repeating myself. The fact that there was an extensive discussion at CSD does not mean that we should change the dropdowns which apply to three sets of images -- speedy, DR, and NPP. I ignored the CSD discussion because I don't do many speedies. So, please don't suggest that somehow those of us who don't do speedies are bound here by a discussion there. I'm sorry to be reopening issues that you may have discussed there, but perhaps you should have had the discussion here.
The requirement for an out-of-scope dropdown, which I think I explained above, is that if you can't read the gallery, you can't choose between GA3 (encyclopedic content) and GA4(promotional). There are also other possibilities such as a personal bio or a gallery with only a single image. As I noted above, about half of my NPP deletes -- 3,500 a year -- are simple "out of scope".
Your second paragraph above asks:
"I don't work on NPP as yet. May I ask what criteria is missing for admins working at NPP?"
I think I listed the two that I would like added -- what part of that did you miss? To repeat, I would be happy if we added two entries:
  • GA5 -- User intended to create a category but did not use the ":Category" prefix
  • GA6 -- Out of scope.
My reasoning is above -- I won't repeat it here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you got it wrong, there are no "three sets of images", just two. First is the DR (aka. non-speedy), and the Second is the speedy, which is basically content speedily deleted upon the discretion of the deleting admin alone, that may include deleting from the requests page or picking from the new files/recent changes. And as I have mentioned before, the dropdown/log-entries consists of almost entirely of log-entries explaining speedy deletions. All DRs are linked through the "Other" field.
As you may well be aware of by now, the CSD policy (or as it's now, a to-be policy) applies to the whole of Commons, that includes this dropdown/log-entries; we can't add new criterion here as and when we like. So I'm afraid "...discussion at CSD does not mean that we should change the dropdowns which apply to three sets of images..." is wrong.
Nevertheless, I don't own the dropdown, and I personally don't have any problems if those lines existed alongside with the CSD criterion. So, of course, you by all means have right to add those two lines after the changes are made (if this discussion remains largely unopposed). Rehman 03:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct, that any deletion from NPP must fit the criteria for a speedy deletion. However, our needs are different from those of a person applying a {{speedy}} because in many cases -- more than half, maybe -- we don't read the language in which a new obviously out of scope gallery page is written. We also see a lot -- 10% in my experience -- of incorrectly created categories, which editors doing speedies never see because such things don't make it past NPP. So, it really is a different set of needs, even though the overarching rules are the same.
On reflection, it may be simpler than I thought above -- could we change GA1 from "Empty gallery" to "Gallery without images or other media files". A gallery page that is all text is not "Empty" and using that word for an all text page will confuse, but what we're really after is galleries that don't have images. (a little more later -- but I think we're close)     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Along the same lines, if we changed the wording of the explanation in GA2, "Unintentionally created gallery", a little I could see using that for cases where the user intended to create a category.
But, as I said at the noticeboard, I think it is a serious mistake to change the drop-downs to tightly conform to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion until it is accepted as policy -- that's just asking for trouble.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, changed GA1. What changes do you propose in GA2? Rehman 02:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
How about
  • "GA2: Gallery created by mistake. User intended to create a Category, a User page, or other special page."
"Mistake" is clearer than "unintentionally", particularly for our colleagues whose English is not good, and it directly addresses the two most common uses it will get -- not-Categories and not-User pages.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, updated. Rehman 03:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
As per the no opposes for a week since proposing the change, I have now updated the list. Rehman 03:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"As per the no opposes for a week since proposing the change" is not correct. I have opposed for several reasons, two of which were answered, but the principal reason, that its underlying list has not been accepted as policy, has not been answered. I don't understand how you think you can tie our reasons for deletion to a non-policy list. Make them policy first.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You stopped responding to the ANB thread, after the changes were made to the CSD. I though you were okay with it? Rehman 13:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed again and again[edit]

I have to work. I have no time to spend weeks and weeks on the same discussions over and over again to see that the main reasons why I delete categories are removed, reordered and hidden somewhere. If you wan to change the list, just analyse tha thousands of deletions that are done per week and see if they fit the new list. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect Foroa, it is not about whether you like it or not. If you have a clear genuine reason why you oppose the change, then I'd like to hear it. Please read the above discussion, and maybe the one at ANB too. Rehman 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This is already the third or forth time you change the list dramatically in a couple of months (after a discussion of many pages), and each time you manage to drop the deletion reasons I use the most. And please, don't change my edits. So analyse the effective use of the deletions and the complaints of the previous list changes. We have to do real work. --Foroa (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many times it's changed as long as it does some good. Now could you please get to the point and tell me, why do you oppose this change, and why you don't agree with the discussion at the section immediately above? Rehman 06:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Lets get to the point: here]. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Huh? You clearly are pushing your personal preference here. I do not want to go against you, or get into an edit war. I genuinely like to hear your side on why you think this doesn't do any good to Commons. So I would really appreciate if you could stop the "I don't like it" type answers, and give a better reason. Rehman 07:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I deleted about 30000 items (mostly categories) without any sort of procedure and with almost no complaints. You may want to play the schoolmaster and decree what deletion reasons can be used. This must be around de fourth or fifth attempt you try to delete (or try to forget) valid reasons to delete categories. I am fed up indeed to discuss the same stupidity again and again, and on top of that being accused as wanting personal preferences and giving "I don't like it" type answers or giving no answers at all (since it took me almost 24 hours to respond on your stupid insults). So practically, tell me what deletion reason of your fancy new list I could use for the "improperly named" deletion cases. --Foroa (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You say:

"It doesn't matter how many times it's changed as long as it does some good."

Dead wrong, as has been said by several Admins who are very active with deletions. Changes are a nuisance. We will tolerate changes that have important benefits, but changes with minor benefits are bad. Your proposed changes have some benefit, but I should point out that you, Rehman, are the only person commenting in favor of these changes, while

  • Martin H.
  • Axpde
  • Herbythyme
  • Leyo
  • Killiondude
  • Saibo
  • Foroa
  • JcB (at ANB)
  • High Contrast (at ANB)

and I have all commented against them at various times since you started this crusade. As I said above, I will accept these changes if, and only if, the underlying list is first accepted as policy by Commons. I don't see how it can be otherwise.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a wiki, and like Wikipedia, it lives on changes. As I have mentioned the advantages of the change earlier above, I must say we are unnecessarily pushing this improvement for no reason; we can, and should always be able to, update further when necessary. Honestly speaking, since a week ago, I haven't seen a single oppose that genuinely say why this change is not good for Commons, except for opposes like "we are editing this page too much" or "I just oppose it". If you want the policy up and running first, fair enough. And also, I don't need a recap at every discussion on who said what, when and where. Rehman 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, apparently you need to be reminded that you are the only voice in favor of these changes, hence the recap. Most of us are too busy doing Admin work to be debating this, so you won't see the people named above commenting again, but they are on record as opposing.
As for "This is a wiki, and like Wikipedia, it lives on changes", that is obviously true for content, but not for procedure and tools. For the latter, stability is far better -- we have many Admins who do not use the system on a daily -- or even weekly -- basis and changes slow down their work and confuse them. Certainly change is necessary from time to time, but small changes in procedures and tools for limited benefit are not a good thing.
As I have said several times, I will support the changes you advocate when and if you get the underlying list adopted as policy, but until then, you are a single voice, the only person advocating these changes over objections from ten colleagues. Need I point out that one versus ten is not a consensus in favor of the one?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Before this thread goes off track, I'd like to openly say that my previous comment was not that civil, and hence I apologize. Coming to the topic, as I said, although I still disagree in the delaying of the change, your argument is fair. We shall move on with the change once the final policy is confirmed. Regards. Rehman 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps both of us are a little frustrated by this -- apology accepted, and I'm sorry for having, perhaps, triggered your comment.
It's moot because you've agree, and perhaps I'm beating a dead horse -- but again, I don't see how we can tie our delete reasons directly to a list that has not been accepted as policy. Without it being policy, you run the risk of Admins objecting to items on the list and we're back to multiple changes, which several of us object strenuously to.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Additions[edit]

I would like to add three new reasons to the dropdown section for galleries, as it would speed up my New Page Patrol significantly. I currently add these in the second box after Out of Scope. I've used them a total of 55 times in the last week.

I would also like to change the "Empty gallery" line.

Note that these will not appear unless the page is a gallery -- when the page has no namespace has no prefix.

We now have

    • Empty gallery
    • User intended to create a category, but did not use "Category:" as the prefix

I'd like them to be:

    • Empty or single image gallery, please see Commons:Galleries
    • User intended to create a category, but did not use "Category:" as the prefix
    • Out of project scope -- Commons Galleries are for collections of images, articles belong in Wikipedia
    • Out of project scope -- Commons Galleries are for collections of images, biographies belong in Wikipedia
    • Out of project scope -- Commons Galleries are for collections of images, not text

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objection after two weeks, I'll make the change.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

shortcuts in masked wikilinks[edit]

Conc. this:

Jameslwoodward demands a discussion. He claims that the link is visible in the dropdown, which is where all see it. So here we go:

I didn't change the displayed text but only the wikilink behind. I replaced the shortcuts (redirects) with the regular wikilink to avoid "happy-link-guessing" when editing the source code. The displayed text in the dropdown menue is exactly the same as before!

As you can see there is no need for any discussion as the reason he provided doesn't apply. a×pdeHello! 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, his reasoning does apply. The displayed text in the log is identical. However, on the actual deletion page, its changed from (for example): Out of [[COM:PS|project scope]] to Out of [[Commons:Project scope|project scope]].
The first is much shorter in the drop-down menu on a deletion page; and is therefore more helpful for admins using the page. (Usability of page trumps maintenance issues).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, thank you Nilfanion. Admins delete about 1,300 pages every day. About 200 of those are DRs, mostly handled by DelReqHandler, but the vast majority of the rest -- maybe 1,000 times a day -- one of us is picking the right line off of the dropdown. If we can save just one second each time by having the drop down lines shorter and easier to use, that's almost two hours of Admin time every week. That overwhelms any saving in editing the list -- something that happens maybe once or twice a month.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I see some of the reasons in the dropdown are redundant. Sharing my thoughts.

  • Reason Nonsense in itself is non-sense. It actually falls under Spam, Vandalism or accidental creation. Shall we remove it?
  • Spam and Cross-wiki spam. Do we need both of them?
  • Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect, Cross-namespace redirect' and Cross-mediatype redirect. Can we combine all of these into a single reason?
  • Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression, Temporary deletion for history merging of different uploads of the same file, Temporary deletion for history splitting of overwritten files. Can we combine these into a single one?
  • Can we add Personality rights violation as a possible deletion reason?

--Sreejith K (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  • "Nonsense" could perhaps be clarified, but I use it when I come across cross-wiki hoaxes (recently someone invented a language and tried to pass it off as real).
  • If we're going to get rid of one, get rid of the more specific "Cross-wiki spam" and leave the more general "Spam", which can be used for both.
  • I'd keep the first one and the third one and get rid of the second one. Cross-mediatype is very different from Cross-namespace.
  • How about just "Temporary deletion" and leave it to the admins to fill in the second field that allows for additional detail.
  • There is, as far as I know, no reason to include "Personality rights violation". Nothing that Commons does violates personality rights.
Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"temporary deletion" is overly broad. Perhaps "temporary deletion for history merging/splitting" - clearer as to purpose. ("revision suppression" and "history cleaning" can be dropped since we should usually be using RevDel for that.) Rd232 (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I did some cleanup here. Feel free to revert or correct my changes appropriately. --Sreejith K (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted Sreejth and Sven -- perhaps I should have been paying attention here -- I think it slipped off my watchlist -- sorry. Specific thoughts:

I use the following two several (probably 10+ each) times every day. While the next entry ("not text") covers the same ground, most of my deletes using this drop down list come out of New Page Patrol, so that they are newbie work. I think that giving the fullest possible explanation is both kind to newbies and reduces questions on my talk page:

  • Out of project scope -- Commons galleries are for collections of images, articles belong in Wikipedia
  • Out of project scope -- Commons galleries are for collections of images, biographies belong in Wikipedia

Again, I use this daily and it provides a specific reason for the deletion:

I have no opinion on the temporary deletions, but I don't think Sreejth and Sven agree. Why don't you hash it out here?

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

unallowed -> disallowed[edit]

I think this should be changed because the vocabulary is wrong?

    • License laundering
    • File is corrupt, empty, or in an unallowed format
    • File page with no file uploaded

--McZusatz (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Temporary deletion reasons[edit]

At the moment we have:

I'd like to add, specifically for categories (it's a mite odd clicking on the first of the above when deleting a category):

  • Temporary deletion for Category renaming

MPF (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing the Commons CSD policy[edit]

Hi all. Unfortunately, even though we have an official CSD policy, none of it is actually being followed, when it comes to our deletion summaries. Please see my proposal to change that here. Thanks. Rehman 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)