UDWiki talk:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
A Couple of Issues
- A lot of the scheduling votes are brought here half baked. I think a mandatory discussion period before voting can begin (like A/PD has) would be beneficial.
- To get a new scheduled deletion, 50% majority is needed. To get a new SD criterion, 66% majority is needed (because it needs to go through A/PD). Seems backwards.
--Midianian 18:48, 3 August 2009 (BST)
- I definitely agree with the discussion period. Heaps of people vote in the first day, before any objections can be raised, and few votes are ever changed. This latest 0x0 image one needs removing and re-starting if it's only supposed to apply to the 0x0 revision, because people voted on it before such issues were even raised, and now others are voting yes on it, in a modified form which is totally different to what the description is -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:08 3 August 2009 (BST)
- I agree with the discussion period, and the voting thing seems like common sense (especially since scheduled deletions don't need to be taken to a page before being deleted.) Linkthewindow Talk 22:19, 3 August 2009 (BST)
- I think it's pretty fine. If people want to vote for something else then they should just vote no like they are doing with the 0x0, and if I want to revise it I can withdraw it and redo it. As for the 50% majority, I think this is fine. Most of this stuff is black and white and the porn scheduled has proved to us that the wiki doesn't break before a bad scheduled is passed and then removed again. We just have to endure a bit of due drama as a result. The deletions scheduling is all about removing needless bureaucracy, I'd hate to fill the voting process up with the same thing. --ϑϑℜ 23:10, 3 August 2009 (BST)
0x0 Images
People are voting in the No then Yes way. Can that even be tallied as a vote anywhere considering it doesn't fully support either side?--SirArgo Talk 20:29, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- We really need to cancel it and just restart it with more discussion.-- High Overlord and Lead Conspirator of the Administrative Rebellion. Want help? 20:34, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Unused Images
(Moved from UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling#Unused_Images —Aichon— 06:25, 29 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)
- No, you talked about what I said, but never dealt with it. The same is true of the previous proposal, which I read before commenting here. Again, if you could point me towards the "reasonable measures," I'll look into them and consider changing my vote. I'm not trying to be belligerent or lazy here, just honest. —Aichon— 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Here is the original proposal I made on this page. The measures in question can be found in DDR's first post in the discussion directly following on from the opening text. I'll quote it for you in case it's a bit hard to find in amongst all the other crap: "And in the event that it occurs (which in an extremely rare occasion that it will), it isn't beyond a sysop to notice it was uploaded either more than a month ago, or longer than the last unused-deletions purge, so an image under any criteria you hypothetically mentioned would stick out like a sore thumb and be fixable."
I didn't respond to it myself; I was too busy with boxy. But it's something that has been happening for quite a while now, and alleviates 99% of the problems that have been brought up here. Cyberbob Talk 05:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)- Thanks. I had seen DDR's post, but boxy's response mirrors my thoughts. If an image is unused, we can tell if it's old (as per what DDR said), but we can't differentiate between images that are unused due to vandalism, accident, or intentional removal, and we certainly can't tell where they came from easily. Only people familiar with where it was removed from would be able to tell. While both two weeks and one month have this issue, only 24 images and 1.25MB (ghost images were excluded) would be deleted at present, which isn't enough to justify the inconvenience some users would face. —Aichon— 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- It would make my job a lot easier, and as you say - the problems you describe exist in the current system as well. So tell me again the direct harm that reducing the time to 2 weeks would cause? Cyberbob Talk 06:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also the "24 images and 1.25MB" thing is entirely irrelevant as that only refers to the reductions if this was implemented right now. Voting on these things lasts for 2 weeks; take a look at the unused images that were uploaded up to rather than at least 2 weeks ago. You also fail to take into account the longterm; a 2 week-list is always going to be shorter than a month-list so overall wastage would be roughly halved. Cyberbob Talk 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- One last thing: I have little sympathy for users who do not keep copies of everything they upload to any internet site on their computer. It's just plain common sense. Cyberbob Talk 06:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The direct harm is that the uploaders of the (current 24) images would have to upload them again if they realized that the images were removed due to vandalism or accident. I'm sympathetic to them, and haven't seen the benefit of changing the status quo yet. If you could describe how it'd make your job easier, it might change my mind, since right now it seems like you'd be deleting the same amount as before.
- Thanks. I had seen DDR's post, but boxy's response mirrors my thoughts. If an image is unused, we can tell if it's old (as per what DDR said), but we can't differentiate between images that are unused due to vandalism, accident, or intentional removal, and we certainly can't tell where they came from easily. Only people familiar with where it was removed from would be able to tell. While both two weeks and one month have this issue, only 24 images and 1.25MB (ghost images were excluded) would be deleted at present, which isn't enough to justify the inconvenience some users would face. —Aichon— 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Here is the original proposal I made on this page. The measures in question can be found in DDR's first post in the discussion directly following on from the opening text. I'll quote it for you in case it's a bit hard to find in amongst all the other crap: "And in the event that it occurs (which in an extremely rare occasion that it will), it isn't beyond a sysop to notice it was uploaded either more than a month ago, or longer than the last unused-deletions purge, so an image under any criteria you hypothetically mentioned would stick out like a sore thumb and be fixable."
- No, you talked about what I said, but never dealt with it. The same is true of the previous proposal, which I read before commenting here. Again, if you could point me towards the "reasonable measures," I'll look into them and consider changing my vote. I'm not trying to be belligerent or lazy here, just honest. —Aichon— 04:56, 29 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Dismissed by some, not by others -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:39 28 November 2009 (BST)
- Regarding the long-term, I don't follow the "voting" comment (since these don't go through A/D or A/SD), but the benefits are not cumulative. For instance, imagine a text file with 100 lines of text on your computer. If you add 5 lines and remove 5 each day, it stays the same size. If you chop it down to 50 lines, but add and remove 5 each day, it still stays the same size, though it's been halved from what it was. The benefit is one-time and makes no long-term difference unless you needed those 50 lines worth of space for something else. If we genuinely need that 1.25MB for something, I'll be happy to change my vote.
