UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling

Shortcut:
A/D/S

This page will be used for users to request that pages falling into certain categories be deleted as appropriate by a sysop without having to go through all the red tape of Speedy Deletions and Deletions. A list of pages in the Scheduled Deletions list is located here.

Deletion Scheduling

Deletion Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as normal Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like normal deletion requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Votes in this case shall be as follows:

• Yea - For approval of the deletion scheduling request
• Nay - For disapproval of the deletion scheduling request

Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use ~~~~)

After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the request fails to get the required number of votes, it doesn't get added. In either case, the closed request can then get shifted to the Archive.

Scheduling requests under consideration

Unused Images

Basically the same thing as last time, and with the same reasoning, except with 2 weeks' leeway instead of 1. I have yet to see any image go unused for more than 2 weeks that didn't also make it to a month without being linked somewhere. Cyberbob  Talk  12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes Cyberbob  Talk  12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
3. No Same as last time, same response. One week extra doesn't cut it for me. --Thadeous Oakley 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   then die Cyberbob  Talk  14:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   What's that Bob, a death threat? Off to A/VB with you then! --Thadeous Oakley 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   hm yase a death threat. thats exactly what it was; a literal threat for your literal death posted on a wiki. on a page for the deletion of 1's and 0's. u r smert Cyberbob  Talk  15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   It's amusing to see how serious you take me sometimes. --Thadeous Oakley 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Yes - Two weeks is more reasonable.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Yea - Two weeks sounds good to me.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Yea - As above. One week is really short. --Haliman - Talk 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Yea No - Seems reasonable as an expected implementation time-frame, and may prompt people to concentrate on finishing what they start. Fail user is fail. I should have read the existing policy, and a month strikes me as fine for a ceiling. -Wulfenbach 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   I've been deleting these things for months and I can tell you that it is not fine. Cyberbob  Talk  10:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   ...and I thank you (seriously) for your work on it, but what are the technical drawbacks of letting it go to one month rather than half that time? Is the wiki running out of storage space? Why the rush to delete? -Wulfenbach 11:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   If we followed that kind of reasoning when the wiki was first made we would not have A/SD. "Disk space = cheep" is not a good enough reason for anything. This is a compromise from my last proposal that would still see the amount of wastage severely reduced. Cyberbob  Talk  11:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, Bob, but having just read the A/SD policy, I cannot see how my reasoning/example/request for clarification leads to NOT having A/SD. If anything, I can see the deletion of unlinked pictures after a given timeframe as being a A/SD criterion. The issue as I understand it is why 2 weeks? Why 1 week? Why 1 month? Why is it better to delete after 2 weeks than one month? You've said that in your experience it is common for a picture that is unlinked for two weeks is likely to remain unlinked. What's the frequency of this then? 9/10? 6/10? I believe you in that in your experience, the above is true. I just would like to see some empirical evidence. -Wulfenbach 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   Ask Jed how the wiki would go out for hours because the server was getting full of data. If we can push the nuke date back a little while farther by getting rid of images people don't use then hell yes.-- SA 11:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   That's a complete strawman argument, new images that are being linked and therefore won't be subject to this are added to the wiki everyday. That's an argument to increase server space, not delete unwanted images quicker. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   It's actually an argument to do both. Yay! Cyberbob  Talk  11:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   Don't worry Bob, I'm about to make all your troubles go away. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   How the fuck can I give you empirical evidence when they're all deleted? Get back to me with a request which can actually be granted, thanks. Cyberbob  Talk  04:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Yea indeed --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
9. No - As last time. Once images are gone, they can't be retrieved. It doesn't happen often, but they can become unused without anyone noticing via vandalism, or pages that get deleted and are later requested for undeletion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:59 26 November 2009 (BST)

   By "doesn't happen often" you mean "has never happened in the history of the wiki", right? You're theorycrafting ridiculously implausible situations for the sake of being contrary. Cyberbob  Talk  00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

   Well, Hagnat, at least, has lost images from one of his old group pages, when Conn SDed it, and then immediately schedule deleted the images. I don't see the need for this, apart from you wanting the unused image list to be slightly shorter. Meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:16 28 November 2009 (BST)

   If by "slightly" you mean "nearly cut in half" then I agree. Cyberbob  Talk  10:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   So what's the big deal with that boxy? If they're in need of being used in the future, just make the request for undeletion, or reupload them. Doesn't really seem like that big of a deal to me. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 18:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

   Can't undelete images. Can reupload, though the whole "may not have the file any more to upload" poses a problem. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

   If you don't keep a copy of anything you upload to any Internet site on your harddrive then you're doing it wrong. Cyberbob  Talk  10:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

10. No - As Boxy, I see absolutely no reason why they need to go in two weeks rather than a month. Perhaps the server is straining under the weight of unused images that are three weeks old.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Yesh - Better time duration. --ZsL 03:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Yea - Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:02, 27 November 2009 (BST)
13. Nay - As those above. Unless there is a pressing reason for why it needs to be changed, I don't see a need for this change. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

    The last time I brought this up there were roughly 50 unused images on the list. There are now 90. Cyberbob  Talk  10:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    90 is an awfully... pointless... number without a sense of scale. Would you like to share with the boys and girls what percentage of all the images on the wiki '90' is? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Much less than 1%, much, much less -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:31 28 November 2009 (BST)

    Tell me why this is a rebuttal to anything again? Cyberbob  Talk  16:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

14. Yes I don't know about other people,... but I try to link to an image first, then upload it to prevent my images from being unused. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 18:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
15. No Month seems fine to me, what is the need to change?--C Whitty 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
16. No Same reason as before --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
17. No - The last edit merely indicates a "ceiling" on the time when an image was likely to have last been used on a page. Since it's acting as a ceiling, not a floor, there's every reason to be liberal in how much time is allowed. It'll rarely get in the way anyway, I should think. —Aichon— 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    What are you talking about? Cyberbob  Talk  10:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Think we've found a new candidate for "worst wording of 2009" since Hag left. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    what is this i dont even-- SA 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    I know exactly what he's talking about.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Even half dead I think I get it too. I was saying that in response to DDR thinking ANYTHING could EVER come close to beating hag's record for mauling the English language the way he can. :) -- SA 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sure one of you will get around to explaining to poor old dumb Cyberbob eventually. Cyberbob  Talk  11:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    He's saying that just because an image shows up on the unused image list, and was uploaded more than a month ago, it doesn't mean that it wasn't potentially used on a page only minutes ago. The upload date is the "ceiling"... the time it was likely first used on a page, the "floor", the last time it was used, is anytime since then, potentially only minutes ago -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:31 28 November 2009 (BST)

    Oh, that. This was brought up last time; it was also eliminated as a problem last time. Cyberbob  Talk  12:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Dismissed by some, not by others -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:39 28 November 2009 (BST)

    It wasn't "dismissed", it was actually dealt with. There are very reasonable measures that can (and are) be taken to ensure that images which have just been removed from their pages aren't necessarily deleted on sight. Again, all of this has been covered already - either you straight-up don't believe that they will be utilised or you're being contrary for the sake of it. Cyberbob  Talk  12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Or I might simply be unaware. If you could just point me towards a discussion of "reasonable measures" that adequately address my concerns, I'll be happy to change my vote. As for what I was saying earlier, "floor" and "ceiling" were referring to the upper/lower bounds of a range. The last edit merely provides an upper bound on when the image was likely to have last been used, but, as Boxy said, the image could have been used mere minutes/days ago, even though it was last edited years ago. —Aichon— 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Dude, stop writing so many unneccessary words. We already dealt with the meaning of what you said. As for your request, the archive link isn't particularly hard to find (it's near the top of the page). What is it with you people and your abject inability to find things for yourselves? Cyberbob  Talk  04:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

18. Nay Standard Zombie 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Would you care to share why? Cyberbob  Talk  15:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Reasons are not required in scheduling votes in order to be valid. Would you care to stop badgering the majority of those disagreeing with you? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Text on an internet page is literally reaching out from the screen and physically forcing you to type... nooo.... Cyberbob  Talk  15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    How many three week old unused images are there? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Right as of this moment (it's a fluid number for obvious reasons), about 20 or so. Cyberbob  Talk  15:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Liar. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Er, there were the last time I checked. This isn't really your best "gotcha" moment as I would have no reason to lie about something so easily checked. Cyberbob  Talk  16:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    "Right as of this moment" is a very definitive statement. The answer to the question is: none. There are no three week old unused images. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    You should probably not talk any more. Cyberbob  Talk  16:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    That's just cheating Issy. -- Cheese 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, an image ark! You should probably know that I don't actually count those as "uses" for images - particularly not when you're clearly only doing it to try and get [MOTION SUBMITTED BY CYBERBOB] denied. So they will still be getting deleted. Cyberbob  Talk  16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Image arks don't count? I think you'll find they do, that's what they're for. Go for it, write your own massive misconduct case, now or February, it doesn't matter to me when you get demoted. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    You think I actually care, or that if I didn't go through with this I'd be demoted in February? Lol. I'd actually take more pleasure in seeing you proven wrong on the latter point than the former. Cyberbob  Talk  16:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Keep talking, those images are used, and you know it. Deleting an image that is not subject to deletion by vote, speedy or scheduled will get you a misconduct escalation each and every time you you do it. You are aware that image arks count as images being in use and have indicated as much. We'll see whether you are posturing or not tomorrow. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, you don't seem to actually be aware of the difference in meaning between the words "latter" and "former". Would you like for me to rectify your sorry lack of knowledge about the English language? Cyberbob  Talk  16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    OMG! Placing all the unused images in an user space archive page to make such a chickenshit point? lol -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:15 28 November 2009 (BST)

    Considering the vast majority of your recent edits are blatant trolling you should probably try listening to your own advice. -- Cheese 15:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

19. I'm going to say no on this occasion. As Boxy said, we can't restore the images once they're gone. If this was fixed then I'd have no problem with this. For now though, I think a month is fine. -- Cheese 16:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Why does having the length of time set at a month alleviate the "problem" (which is really just a matter someone being too stupid to not keep a copy of the images they upload on their computer) any more than having it at two weeks? People throw around this "ohhhh gosh can't undelete em!" line but nobody has explained why this would make it any worse. Cyberbob  Talk  04:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Grouped Location Pages

Grouped location pages, such as Shackleville Schools, are to be deleted once they have been de-merged and incoming links (excluding those referencing deletion) have been diverted to the appropriate pages.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 05:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes --Orange Talk 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Yea - It might not get used frequently, and only by a select few ops, but why the hell not. Basically, a) they are already crit 1's, and the more black-and-white sort of crit 1's, not "policy says c1's are 2 lines of text but this has 3". b) Anyone who attains sysop status will already know the correct procedure so it isn't like we will mess it up, and it isn't the sort of task that an unknowing sysop would do on a whim anyway, there is a lot of work involved beforehand. c) Even in the case of an op going rogue there is practically null way any sysop could abuse this as part of some personal vendetta etc. so I don't see why we shouldn't add this to get rid of the red tape to make it easier for location pages to conform with existing policy. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
3. No - Removing all the links is a monotonous task and it would be easy to miss some in the endless repetition of changing them. The oversight from sending it to A/SD ensures that nothing is missed. I see absolutely no great gain to be achieved in scheduling this and a potential problems if we change from the current system that works fine. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
4. No - Yeah. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Nay - As DDR mentioned, crit 1 speedy delete means these group pages get nuked anyway. And since unmerging is so involved, it's a good idea to have at least one other person review the links for errors. Finally, all of the group locations will be gone soon anyway, and this scheduling policy will then be defunct--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes - Forgot to vote. While the nays do bring up good points, I still feel that the sysops who participate in demerging (who would benifit from this) are trustworthy enough to do a thourough job.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes - Though I'd suggest shelving it if and when it becomes defunct. 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes - Nah. Cyberbob  Talk  04:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Yea - I had been wondering about these kinds of pages for a while but never really gave it much thought. There will be a lot of links to check and double-check, but I think that generally this is something that probably should have been done a long time ago. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Yes - De facto because of Crit 1, just make it happen.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
11. No If you've copied and pasted everything to relevant pages its already covered under crit 1, and i think its prudent to double check the likes of dunell hill streets. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
12. No As Ross. Beeeeeee! --Thadeous Oakley 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

    Holeee Fuck. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

13. Nope - It would be best to use A/SD in order for another user to double-check. --ZsL 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
14. No - I don't think this is necessary, given that there arn't that many of them anyway -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:00 25 November 2009 (BST)
15. Yes A job needed doing--C Whitty 17:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Yea - Saves time. --Haliman - Talk 18:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Yes Standard Zombie 15:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Requests

Unnecessary Banned User Pages

Passed with 14 for and 2 against. Cyberbob  Talk  11:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Image revision removal

Image revisions that are older than 7 days are to be removed.

Approved 16 May 2006

Monumental Screw Ups

Pages in this form: with//////lots//////of//////slashes, and this one: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Example_monumental_screwup are unable to be moved or edited via normal means. Their content is to be manually moved to a sensible pagename without extraneous //s in its title and the original page is to be deleted on sight.

Note to sysops: A method for deleting these pages can be found here.

Approved 23 August 2006

Unused redirects resulting from page moves

redirects resulting from moves, that only show admin pages in their "what links here" list.

Approved 3 Mar 2007

Copyrighted images

Images that are requested to be deleted by the copyright holder

Approved 10 Nov 2007

Broken redirects

redirects that lead to nonexistent pages

Approved 12 Dec 2007

Personal Information

If a user wants personal information about themselves deleted from the wiki, they should be able to get it speedy deleted. Things like your name, your phone number, your email or home address, your workplace, pictures of your family etc. ^Link

Approved 11 July 2008

Porn is to be deleted on sight.

I like porn, you like porn, but this isnt the place for it.

Approved 22 July 2008

Revoked 2 August 2009

User page redirects

in the main space should be delete on sight as crit 3 or 9 (excluding those redirecting to Kevan).

Approved 26 November 2008

Swearing in page titles

Pages that have swearing in the title that is directed at a user or group (or their actions).

Approved 22 July 2008

Crit 7 by Proxy

If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page.

Approved 26 March 2009

As of January 2010, this scheduling now includes pages that the author has blanked or replaced with text indicating a desire to be deleted. However, pages used as inclusions (such as many templates) are excluded from this criterion.

Approved 3 January 2010

Crit 11

Userpages/Journals that are in the User: namespace but are non-existent users, and are already duplicated in the appropriate User: or Journal: subspace may be deleted on sight.

Approved 30 June 2009

Adbot-created pages

Pages created by Adbots and Spambots are to be deleted on sight.

Approved 30 July 2009

Unnecessary banned user pages

The User: pages of permabanned spambots and vandal alts (that have no contributions showing) are to be deleted on sight.

Approved 27 November 2009

Grouped location pages

Grouped location pages are to be deleted once each individual location has its own page and all incoming links (excluding those refrencing deletion) are diverted.

Approved 1 December 2009

Unused Image Removal

Images on the Unused Image list that are two weeks old are to be deleted. Images that are linked by text only will appear on the unused image list also.

Approved 10 December 2009

Associated talk pages

Talk pages associated with pages that are deleted under other policies, including talk pages missed in previous deletions.

Approved 19th May 2010

Amended 14th August 2011

Crit 9

Personal Page (Prefix Rule): The page is named after a user without the "User:" or "Journal:" prefixes and its content has been moved to the appropriate User or Journal page. Includes pages that should be User subpages, ie. in-game characters.

Approved 29th August 2011